WB Commissioner Of Customs Has Jurisdiction Over Whole Of States Of West Bengal & Sikkim: Calcutta High Court
|The Calcutta High Court held that the Commissioner of Customs, West Bengal has jurisdiction over the whole of the States of West Bengal and Sikkim.
The Court held thus in an appeal preferred by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), West Bengal against the order passed in a writ petition.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya observed, “… we are of the view that the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), West Bengal has jurisdiction over the whole of the States of West Bengal and Sikkim and the jurisdiction conferred on the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Airport and Air Cargo Complex), Kolkata over the Netaji Subhas Chandra International Airport will not take away the powers of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), West Bengal who has the jurisdiction over the entire State of West Bengal.”
Senior Standing Counsel K.K. Maity and Junior Standing Counsel Tapan Bhanja represented the appellant while Advocate Rohit Das represented the respondent.
Factual Background -
The respondent person had filed a writ petition seeking for setting aside the inventory cum seizure list as also the summons. He further sought for a direction upon the appellant (Customs Commissioner) to unconditionally release the goods being 200 bags containing 5 metric tonnes of areca nuts which were seized by the customs authorities under the seizure memo. He had procured the said areca nuts, from a supplier at Imphal, Manipur under three GST invoices and the value of the consignment was declared as Rs. 34,16,765/-. The goods arrived at the Airport in Kolkata and when the respondent 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 visited in-bound domestic cargo warehouse of the Airport and detained/seized the goods.
The reason behind such 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 respondent filed a writ petition and contended that the customs authorities effected the seizure without authority of law and jurisdiction. The appellant opposed the same but the Writ Court rejected the contention of the revenue that the court should not interfere with the case which is under investigation by holding that since the preventive officer did not have jurisdiction, the customs authorities cannot proceed with enquiry/investigation. Challenging this, the appellant filed an appeal.
The High Court in the above context of the case said, “As noted above the interpretation to be given to statutory notification conferring jurisdiction upon the officers has to be given the true meaning and purpose for which such notification has been issued.”
The Court noted that if the Commissioner of the Customs (Preventive), West Bengal exercise 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.
“This interpretation alone will sub-serve the purpose for which the power has been exercised under Section 4(1) and any other interpretation which will thwart the effective implementation of the notification has to be wholly avoided and rejected”, it added.
Furthermore, the Court said that the writ petition ought to have been rejected at the threshold as being premature.
“… it is seen that representative samples have been drawn from all the 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”, it enunciated.
The Court, therefore, held that the seizure by the Preventive Department of the Customs is valid and the same is not vitiated.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and directed the Customs Department to proceed with the investigation and take the matter to the logical end in accordance with law.
Cause Title- Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), West Bengal v. Bangari Bhola and Others (Neutral Citation: 2024:CHC-OS:216-DB)
Appearance:
Appellant: SSC K.K. Maiti and JSC Tapan Bhanja.
Respondents: Advocates Rohit Das, Shantanu Mitra, Sreyash Basu Dasgupta, Kishwar Rahman, Divya Jyoti Tekriwal, and Rishav Mazumder.