West Bengal Customs Commissioner Has Jurisdiction Over West Bengal And Sikkim: Calcutta High Court Upholds Seizure
The Calcutta High Court has upheld the seizure and held that the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), West Bengal, has jurisdiction over the whole of the States of West Bengal and Sikkim.
The bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya has observed that if the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), West Bengal, exercises jurisdiction over the whole of the States of West Bengal and Sikkim apart from the Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, it cannot be said that merely because in Clause 10, the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Airport and Air Cargo Complex), Kolkata has been given jurisdiction over Netaji Subhas Chandra International Airport, that would denude the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), West Bengal.
The appellant/Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), West Bengal, has challenged the order passed in writ petition filed by the respondent/assessee. In the writ petition, the assessee sought to set aside the inventory cum seizure list dated February 6, 2024, as well as the summons dated March 26, 2024. The assessee also sought a direction from the appellant to unconditionally release the goods, which were 200 bags containing five metric tons of areca nuts, which were seized by the customs authorities under the seizure memo.
The assesee procured five metric tons of areca nuts from a supplier at Imphal, Manipur, under three GST invoices. The value of the consignment was declared, and they were dispatched by air from Imphal under the cover of three e-way bills. The goods arrived at the Netaji Subhas Chandra International Airport, Kolkata. When the assessee went to collect the goods from the domestic cargo complex of the International Airport, he was informed that the Preventive Officer of Customs SRI Unit, the respondent, visited the inbound domestic cargo warehouse of the International Airport and detained/seized the goods. The reason behind the detention was that the goods were suspected to be of foreign origin and illegally imported into India in contravention of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, and the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023.
The goods were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, after which an inventory-cum-seizure list of even dates was prepared and reasons were recorded for the seizure.
The assessee contended that the customs authorities have effected the seizure without authority of law and jurisdiction by placing reliance on the Notification No. 82/2017-Customs issued by the Central Board of Customs and Excise under Section 4(1) of the Customs Act. The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata and the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Airport and Air Cargo Complex), Kolkata and subordinate authorities under their respective control have jurisdiction over ports of Kolkata and Haldia and the International Airport areas, the areas under the jurisdiction of Kolkata, Howrah and South Suburban Corporations, so much of the Hooghly river as is downstream of the northern limit of the Kolkata Port and all land as are within the 10 kilometres of the high water mark and spring tide on either side of the river, while the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), West Bengal, the appellant and subordinate authorities under his control have jurisdiction over the rest of the State of West Bengal. Therefore, the purported seizure carried out by the Preventive Officer of Customs, SRI Unit, within the territorial limits of the International Airport is entirely without jurisdiction and therefore wholly illegal and void ab initio.
The writ court, while allowing the petition, held that all though jurisdiction has been conferred on the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) in respect of the whole of the State of West Bengal, yet the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata, and the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Airport and Air Cargo Complex), Kolkata have been conferred with jurisdictional areas including Netaji Subhas Chandra International Airport.
The department contended that so far as the Commissioner (Airport) he would have jurisdiction and functions all work related to movement of aircraft, incoming/outgoing passengers and baggage at the airport, anti-smuggling works at the airport, import/export of goods by courier mode, etc. By placing reliance on the manual, it was submitted that the main function of the preventive department is prevention of smuggling of dutiable, prohibited, and restricted goods. The order is liable to be set aside, and the department should be permitted to continue with their investigation.
The assessee contended that the goods are of foreign origin, which requires a solid foundation and cannot be based on mere suspicion, more particularly when the burden is on the department to show that the goods are of foreign origin. With regard to the Customs Preventive Manual, it was submitted that it is in the nature of a citizen's charter and it cannot be relied on by the department to sustain their action.
Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, deals with seizure of goods, documents, and things. Subsection (1) states that if the proper officer has reason to believe that any goods are liable to confiscation under the Act, he may seize such goods.
The court noted that the cargo manager of Indigo Airlines was directed to call the consignee, the writ petitioner, to appear. However, the consignee/writ petitioner neither appeared to claim the goods nor contacted the officers concerned. Therefore, the seizing officer has recorded that the consignee neither turned up nor produced any documents to claim the goods, and therefore the goods have been seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act on the reasonable belief that the goods were illegally imported in India in contravention of the provisions of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023, and liable for confiscation under the provisions of the Customs Act. The representative samples have been drawn from all three bags, and the seizure-cum-search list incorporating all the facts was prepared in the presence of the two independent witnesses. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the seizure was effected without any reasonable belief that the goods are of foreign origin.
The court held that the seizure by the Preventive Department of the Customs is valid and the seizure is not vitiated for the reasons contended by the writ petitioner, and consequently the order passed in the writ petition is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
The court directed the Customs department to proceed with the investigation and take the matter to the logical end in accordance with law.
Counsel For Petitioner: K.K. Maiti
Counsel For Respondent: Rohit Das
Case Title: Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive), West Bengal Versus Bangari Bhola And Others
Case No.: A.P.O.T NO. 221 OF 2024 (I.A. NO. G.A./02/2024)