By TIOL News Service

SHILLONG, APR 22, 2016: THE Petitioner claims to be owner of a jewellery shop. The Petitioner claimed ownership of 26 pieces of gold weighing 4350 grams seized by the Customs. The gold was initially found by the RPF from four passengers travelling by Train to Howrah and same was to be delivered to the Petitioner at Howrah and the case was subsequently handed over to the Customs. It is the case of the Petitioner that the gold was purchased by him from a dealer who issued the invoices and the payments were also made through bank account. The Petitioner in the Writ Petition, challenged the seizure of the gold by Customs under Section 110 as there was no reason to believe that the goods are liable for confiscation.

After hearing both sides, the High Court held:

+ The Court can certainly exercise the powers under Article 226 of the constitution of India even in the case of seizure but not in a case which involves the disputed questions of facts. In the instant case, there is an allegation of gold smuggling against the petitioner by the Customs Department and the seizure of the items was effected in highly suspicious circumstances when the accused persons were found to be accompanied by a person who had earlier indulged in the smuggling of gold and a criminal case is pending against him.

+ Yet another point that needs to be noticed is that the petitioner instead of invoking the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should have exhausted alternative remedy in the nature of being a substantive and unfettered right to file statutory appeal.

+ This is not a case where despite existence of an efficacious alternative remedy in the nature of substantive right this Court has to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. There is no violation of the principle of natural justice or a fundamental right or there is impingement of vires of the Act by way of any challenge. It is also not a case where there is arbitrary exercise of powers by statutory authority in clear violation of the provisions of statute. Though the petitioner has tried to offer some explanations in support of the arguments on the requirement of ‘reason to believe' as contained in Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 but it is also not a case where the appeal or any further proceedings under the statute were not or would not be dealt with on merit and may end as a mere idle formality because the administrative authorities under the Customs Act are also a quasi judicial authority and as such, they are under a legal obligation to decide the matter carefully and pass speaking and reasoned orders in accordance with law after giving full opportunity to the parties. Chapter XV of the Customs Act contains a complete code on the effective and efficacious remedies like appeals and revision etc.

+ Where the provisions of Customs Act have not been complied with or if the fundamental principles of judicial procedure have been given a goodbye, the High Court can certainly grant relief in exercise of prerogative writ. However, the right of appeal as provided in the Customs Act should not be by passed merely on the ground that it is an appeal from one administrative authority to another.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Petition.

(See 2016-TIOL-814-HC-SHILLONG-CUS)