Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging SCN Regarding Export Of Banned Yarn Shawls

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Courts have held that jurisdiction in the case of shawls containing prohibited material lies in Delhi, not Jammu & Kashmir, as the seizure took place in Delhi.

The bench of Chief Justice N. Kotiswar Singh and Justice M.A. Chowdhary has observed that in the absence of any specific pleadings in the writ petitions as well as memoranda of appeals, it cannot be said that any part of the cause of action had accrued to the appellant-petitioner at Srinagar.

One consignment of Pashmina-embroidered ladies' shawls was presented for clearance for export to Switzerland to Customs Authorities at IGI Airport, New Delhi. On examination by the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau (Northern Region), New Delhi, it was observed that out of 33 shawls, 20 appeared to be a mixture of Shahtoosh, and based on the fact that the goods contained objectionable yarn or not, the shawls were sent for a forensic test. The Regional Deputy Director, Wildlife Crime Control Bureau, certified that all suspected twenty pieces of shawls contained the hair of the Tibetan Antelope (Pantholopes Hodgsoni), which was prohibited, as there was a reason that they were liable for confiscation. Those shawls were seized in terms of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, in New Delhi.

A show cause notice was issued by the Commissioner of Customs (SIIB), Air Cargo Export, New Delhi (Special Intelligence & Investigation Branch) to the petitioner-appellant, who had dispatched the seized consignment from Srinagar to be delivered in Switzerland. The notice was challenged by the appellant-petitioner before the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Courts.

The respondent, Regional Deputy Director, Wildlife Crime Control Bureau (NR), New Delhi, issued a communication to the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), New Delhi, who registered a case under Sections 40, 49, 49-B, and 58 read with Section 51 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, based on which a notice was issued to the appellant-petitioner by the Inspector of Police, New Delhi, along with the proceedings initiated. The notices and the FIR were also challenged by the appellant-petitioner before the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Courts.

The Single Bench held that since the consignment or goods had been seized in Delhi, proceedings emanating as a consequence of the seizure of prohibited or banned consignments or goods had been initiated in Delhi, so it would be appropriate for the petitioner to approach the courts or forums in Delhi, and both the writ petitions were dismissed.

The petitioner contended that the Writ Court, allegedly without appreciating the matter, simply held that the goods had been seized in Delhi. Therefore, the courts in Delhi had jurisdiction, and the observation of the Writ Court is contrary to the law; as such, the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside.

The petitioner argued that the Courts/Fora at Delhi may have jurisdiction in the matter since the seizure, proposed confiscation, and registration of a criminal case against the appellant-petitioner were at Delhi. But the Jammu & Kashmir High Court also had writ jurisdiction because the shipment of items that were purportedly confiscated had come by courier service from Srinagar, the appellant-petitioner's place of business.

The court held that merely pleading that the consignment was booked from Srinagar by the appellant-petitioner and the notices and communications from the respondents were received by the appellant-petitioner at Srinagar does not disclose any cause of action having arisen at Srinagar so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on the basis of part of the cause of action, exercising the writ jurisdiction.

Counsel For Appellant: Nisar Ahmad

Counsel For Respondent: T.M. Shamsi

Case Title: M/S Ali Shah Versus Union of India

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 275

Case No.: LPA No. 136/2023

Click Here To Read The Order