Kerala High Court
Shri.Bangantavida Nazir vs Inspector Of Customs (Proventive ... on 14 November, 2014
Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936
WP(C).No.32496 of 2014 (J)
-----------------------------------------
PETITIONER:
-------------------
SHRI.BANGANTAVIDA NAZIR,
S/O.ABDUL MAJEED PEDIKA KANDY,
AGED 38 YEARS,RUKHIYAS HOUSE,
NEAR RICE MILL,KANNUR-670003.
BY ADVS.SRI.JOY THATTIL ITTOOP
SRI.A.G.ADITYA SHENOY
RESPONDENTS:
------------------------
1. INSPECTOR OF CUSTOMS (PROVENTIVE OFFICER),
AIR INTELLIGENCE UNIT,
OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS,
COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT,
NEDUMBASSERY,COCHIN-683585.
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CUSTOMS,
OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS,
COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT,
NEDUMBASSERY,COCHIN-683585.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS,
OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS,
COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT,
NEDUMBASSERY,COCHIN-683585.
BY SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL,SC,
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 10.12.2014 THE COURT ON 11-12-2014, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
pk
WP(C).No.32496 of 2014 (J)
--------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:
------------------------------------
EXHIBIT-P1:TRUE COPY OF THE ARREST MEMO DATED 14.11.2014.
EXHIBIT-P2:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING F.NO.S/14/130/2014-AIR CUS
DATED 14.11.2014 ISSUEDF BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P3:TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS DATED 14.11.2014 ISSUED UNDER
SECTION 108 OF THE CUSTOMS ACT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P4:TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR REPORT DATED 18.11.2014 ISSUED
BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CUSTOMS,CPU,KANNUR.
EXHIBIT-P5:TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25.11.2014 ISSUED TO THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL
--------------------------------------
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TO JUDGE
pk
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P.(C).No.32496 of 2014
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 11th day of December, 2014
J U D G M E N T
The short question that arises in this case is whether the authorities under the Customs have power to detain passport of a person against whom proceedings are initiated under the Customs Act, 1962.
2. The petitioner was bailed out by the customs authority as per Ext.P3 with certain conditions. One of the grounds on which bail was granted was that the petitioner shall surrender his passport before the Assistant/Deputy Customs while executing the bond.
3. Petitioner was intercepted by the officers of the Customs alleging that the petitioner attempted to smuggle 3.50 kgs of Silver coloured metallic objects concealed inside a rice cooker and a hot plate. The authorities suspect petitioner is part of a large W.P.(C).No.32496/2014 -:2:- racket of smugglers importing gold and other items to India. Since the only issue before me is regarding the power of the Customs Authorities in detaining the passport, other details are not necessary for the purpose of adjudicating the issues involved in this writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the judgment of the Madras High Court of Madhurai Bench in Kaja Mohaideen v. The Senior Intelligence Officer [2013 MLJ (CRL) 720] submits that passport cannot be detained by the Customs Authority. However, the above judgment refers to the power of the Passport Authorities in impounding the passport. No doubt, I am of the view that the Passports Act, 1967 is a self contained Act and Customs Authorities have no power to impound any passport. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the Customs refers to a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Thomas v. Union of India [1989 (2) KLT 292] and Santha Kumar v. Collector of Customs [1989 (2) KLT 881] and submits that the Customs Authorities have power to detain passport in W.P.(C).No.32496/2014 -:3:- terms of S.110(3) of the Customs Act. S.110(3) lays down as follows:
"(3) The proper officer may seize any documents or things which, in his opinion, will be useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under this Act."
5. In Santhakumar's case (supra) it is held that if the passport is seized on the ground that it is useful or relevant for the proceedings under the Customs Act, the proper action to be taken is under S.110(3) of the Customs Act and not under S.14 of the Passports Act. Thus, it is clear in view of the above judgment that the Customs Authorities have power to detain the passport if it is relevant for any enquiry or proceedings under the Customs Act. However, as seen from Ext.P3, no reason has been assigned why the passport is required or the purpose of the proceedings under the Customs Act. The right to travel is a fundamental right and can be restricted only on cogent reasons. Therefore, the authorities must state reasons for the requirement to detain or retain the passport W.P.(C).No.32496/2014 -:4:- for any enquiry. It is only when the passport is relevant for any enquiry or proceedings under the Customs Act, the Customs Authorities can detain the passport.
6. In the light of the above, the following directions are issued i. The Customs Authorities must state the reasons for retaining the passport in terms of S.110(3) of the Customs Act.
ii. If it is not required for any proceedings under the Customs Act, same shall be returned to the petitioner forthwith.
iii. The decision shall be taken within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE ms