Writ Petition (C) No. 166 of 2016. Case: R.K. Angangbi Singh Vs Commissioner of Cus. (Preventive) Ner. Meghalaya High Court

Case NumberWrit Petition (C) No. 166 of 2016
Party NameR.K. Angangbi Singh Vs Commissioner of Cus. (Preventive) Ner
CounselFor Appellant: Shri V.K. Jindal, Sr. Advocate with N. Dasgupta, Adv. and For Respondents: Shri R. Deb Nath, Adv.
JudgesDinesh Maheshwari, CJ and Ved Prakash Vaish, J.
IssueConstitution of India - Article 226
Citation2016 (339) ELT 13 (Meghalaya)
Judgement DateMay 23, 2016
CourtMeghalaya High Court

Order:

Dinesh Maheshwari, C.J.

  1. The petitioner seeks to maintain this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the Order-in-Original No. CCP/NER/10/2016, dated 18-4-2016, whereby the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), North Eastern Region, Shillong has ordered absolute confiscation of the articles in question i.e., gold biscuits weighing 4334.79 grams, which were seized in case No. 06/CL/IMP/CUS/HQRS.PREV./SH/2013-14, dated 27-8-2014 under Sections 111(b) and (d) of the Customs Act, 1962 (''the Act of 1962''). The Commissioner has also ordered confiscation of other articles and has also imposed penalty on the persons found to be in possession of, or dealing with, the gold in question.

  2. Upon taking up this matter, we have queried the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner at the outset about the availability of alternative remedy of appeal and as to why this matter be entertained in the writ jurisdiction of this Court?

  3. The learned senior counsel submits that earlier too, the petitioner had approached this Court questioning the proceedings under Section 110 of the Act of 1962 in Writ Petition No. 344 of 2014 wherein, of course, this Court ultimately declined to entertain the matter in the writ jurisdiction but then, the petitioner approached the Hon''ble Supreme Court by filing petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 32095 of 2015 that was dismissed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court on 23-11-2015 but with liberty to the petitioner to take up all such grounds that are available to him including the grounds raised in the petition for Special Leave to Appeal. In the aforesaid background, the learned Senior Counsel contends that the petitioner had raised the basic questions before the authority concerned as regards the very validity and basis of the proceedings under Section 110 of the Act of 1962; and the authority having not properly examined the questions so raised, the petitioner seeks to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court as even otherwise, the remedy of appeal is an onerous one.

  4. We are afraid, the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner do not make out a case for entertaining this writ petition.

  5. A look at the order impugned makes it clear that the Commissioner has specifically referred to the grounds raised on behalf of the petitioner and addressed himself to the basic question as to whether there was any justification i.e., reasons to believe with the Custom officers to...

To continue reading

Request your trial