Customs Act Grants Unfettered Investigative Powers Where Infraction Is Suspected: Patna High Court

The Patna High Court has held in a recent judgement that the Customs Act, 1962 provides 'unfettered power' to investigate where there are reasons to believe that there has been infraction of its provisions.

Presiding over the case, Justice Mohit Kumar Shah, observed, “The investigation cannot be nipped in the bud and be prevented simply on the basis of certain technicalities. The Customs Act provides unfettered power to investigate where there are reasons to believe that there has been infraction of the provision of the Customs Act.”

The above ruling was made in a Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case which was filed by the Bishal Roadways seeking the release of a truck and 304 bags, containing 20,520 kgs of betel nuts seized by the Customs (Preventive) authorities in Muzaffarpur, Bihar, in January 2020. The petitioners had also challenged the very initiation of the seizure and confiscation proceedings, terming them ultra vires the Customs Act.

As per the factual matrix of the case, the seized consignment was suspected to be of foreign origin, particularly Indonesian betel nuts, and the seizure was based on a “reasonable belief” by the Integrated Anti-Smuggling Unit. The goods and vehicle had been lying in the open, and the petitioners argued they were perishable and sought their immediate release on furnishing cash and bank guarantees. The legality of the proceedings under the Customs Act was also challenged.

However, the maintainability of the writ petition was opposed by the Customs authorities, while stating that the person filing the petition on behalf of Bishal Roadways, Shyama Kant Choudhary, had failed to disclose the nature of his authorisation. Furthermore, the registered owner of the vehicle, Amit Mishra, had neither filed for the vehicle's release nor authorised anyone to do so.

The Court, taking note of various inconsistencies pointed out during the arguments, observed that the petitioners had not approached the Court with clean hands. He remarked, “...this Court finds that allegations and counter allegations have been levelled from both the sides and in fact the respondent Custom authorities, in their counter affidavit filed before this Court, have raised the issue regarding the very maintainability of the writ petition in its present form and have alleged non-cooperation by the petitioners during the course of investigation as also have placed materials on record to show that the petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands, thus disentitling them from any relief under the equitable and discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India...”

The Court further remarked that it would not go into the merit of the imputations since the same would prejudice the case of the petitioners and, “it would suffice to state that since the investigation is going on and is in a nascent stage, any interference in the seizure proceedings would have the effect of hampering and stifling proper investigation and adjudication.”

Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons mentioned, the Court opined that since the material on record prima facie indicated suspicious and dubious transaction as also a serious challenge was made by the respondents with regard to the maintainability of the present writ petition, “it would be proper not to delve on the merits of the case since the same may cause prejudice to the owners of the goods/vehicle, hence I deem it fit and proper to grant liberty to the petitioners to raise all the issues raised herein, in the present writ petition, before the respondent Custom authorities at an appropriate stage.”

And accordingly, the Court directed the respondent Custom authorities to consider the same in accordance with law, as and when raised, and pass appropriate orders expeditiously.

“It is expected that the investigation and the adjudication proceedings emanating therefrom, if any, shall be completed within a period of six months from today,” the Court concluded.

Case Title: Bishal Roadways Versus UOI

LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 43

Click Here To Read Judgement