Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Meghalaya High Court

Laltanpuii vs . The Commissioner Of Customs ... on 19 September, 2018

Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 MEG 227

Bench: Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, S.R. Sen

 Serial No. 02
 Regular List
                        HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
                            AT SHILLONG

WP(C) No. 39 of 2018
                                                Date of Decision: 19.09.2018

Laltanpuii                   Vs. The Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)
                                 North Eastern Region & Anr.


Coram:
      Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, Chief Justice
      Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.R. Sen, Judge


Appearance:
For the Petitioner(s)             :      Mr. N. Dasgupta, Adv.

For the Respondent(s)              :     Mr. N. Mozika, Adv. with

Ms. S.A. Shallam, Adv.

i)    Whether approved for reporting in                   Yes/No
      Law journals etc.:

ii)   Whether approved for publication
      in press:                                           Yes/No

ORAL


1)    In     terms      of     Seizure   Case    No.     19/CL/IMP/BETEL

NUT/DRI/GAU/2017-18 dated 29th October, 2017 betel nuts weighing 32 MT had been seized while it was in transit allegedly from Mizoram to West Bengal, same is sought to be set aside on the ground that seizure is made without jurisdiction. In addition, it is prayed that betel nuts being highly perishable and non notified commodity under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 therefore was required to be released provisionally under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, same has not been done, hence the instant petition.

2) Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that so far the question of jurisdiction is concerned he will agitate same before the adjudicating authority. However, at present main grievance of petitioner which require immediate attention is provisional release of seized betel nuts as is permissible under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962.

3) The respondents have filed affidavit-in-opposition stating therein that samples were drawn from consignment of betel nuts and sent to „Arecanut Research Development Foundation (R) [ARDF], Karnataka‟ for identification and origin of said betel nuts, where from report has been received on 20th November, 2017 as follows:

"...(Sample 1) under its seal has been tested and found to be of White split betel nuts of Indonesian origin. The nuts are highly infested with insects and moulds and not good for human consumption."

4) The contention of the petitioner is that respondent authorities was under legal obligation to adhere to Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 because provision is for protecting perishable goods from getting perished. When confronted that the betel nuts as per expert report are highly infested with insects and not good for human consumption would submit that he has taken up the matter with the adjudicating authorities highlighting therein that betel nuts if released will not be used for human consumption but will be used for some other purposes. In this behalf has stated to have submitted a detailed letter dated 8th August, 2018 to the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) North Eastern Region, Shillong.

5) After considering the record and position of the case, we are not inclined to pass any order regarding release or otherwise because the authorities under Customs Act have the power to deal with such situations. Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 reads as under:

"[110-A. Provisional release of goods, documents and things seized pending adjudication.- Any goods, documents or things seized under section 110, may, pending the order of the adjudicating officer, be released to the owner on taking a bond from him in the proper form with such security and conditions as the Commissioner of Customs may required.]"

6) Plain reading of the Section would suggest that the word employed "may" is directory so discretionary, therefore the power has to be exercised in keeping with the spirit of the Section. Suffice it to say that the authorities concerned have to pass the appropriate order for or against as shall be warranted, in the peculiarly facts and to keep in view the report of the expert.

7) Disposal of this petition on aforesaid terms is not opposed by the learned counsel for respondent authorities.

8)        The petition is accordingly disposed of.



       (S.R. Sen)                                    (Mohammad Yaqoob Mir)
         Judge                                           Chief Justice




Meghalaya
19.09.2018
"V. Lyndem PS"




                                                                        Page 3 of 3