Commissioner of Customs vs State of Gujarat

Akil Kureshi, J.—This is a strange case where the customs authorities and the Police Department of the State, which should normally and ideally be on the same side of law, are at loggerheads and are opposing each other in a petition instituted by the customs authorities. Few facts may be noted. The issue pertains to a private bonded warehouse situated at Plot No. 119, Ward No. 6, Industrial Area, Gandhidham-Kachchh where respondent No. 5 has a private bonded warehouse. The customs authorities carried out a surprise check of such warehouse on 14th August 2012 and prima facie found substantial discrepancies in the registered stock and the physical stock of various items, principally bottles of liquor. On such basis, the customs authorities initially sealed the godown and thereafter passed an order on 17th September 2012 suspending the licence of the warehouse. In the meantime the police authorities, prima facie believing that such excess stock was meant for being clandestinely brought within the State of Gujarat in breach of prohibition law, namely, the Gujarat Prohibition Act, started their own investigation. The police authorities insisted upon the cooperation from the Customs Department and found the response not entirely to their satisfaction. Eventually, an FIR came to be recorded on 19th September 2012 being Prohibition C.R. No. 5449 of 2012. In such FIR the allegations have been made principally against the proprietor of the bonded warehouse on the premise that large quantity of foreign made liquor was stored in the warehouse in excess of the declared stock for the purpose of breach of the prohibition law. In such FIR the allegations of non-cooperation on the part of the Customs Authorities in the police enquiries have also been made. On the same day, yet another FIR bearing C.R. No. II 3418 of 2012 came to be filed recording the offences under Sections 175, 176 and 186 of IPC against the Customs Officers on the premise that they had hindered the police authorities in their official duties.

At this stage, we are not concerned with the allegations made in the FIR. We are primarily concerned with the incompatible situation which is prevailing between the customs authorities and the police authorities. The case of the customs authorities is that the bonded warehouse is located in the customs area and cannot be treated as part of the State territory. Any irregularities therein would give rise to the offences under the Customs Act and the penal provisions contained in the said Act would apply over which only customs authorities would have jurisdiction to enquire and investigate into it. On the other hand, police authorities hold a belief that being a direct breach of prohibition laws, the investigation by the police department cannot be thwarted.

At this stage, we notice that the enquiry by the customs authorities on the premise of alleged breach of the Customs Act, the Rules made thereunder and the terms of the licence of the bonded warehouse is still incomplete and in the meantime the police authorities have put their own seals on the warehouse. Without expressing any opinion on the both FIRs we are of the opinion that the customs authorities should be allowed to complete the enquiry for which we have already granted six weeks'' time in a connected petition. Once such enquiry is over, it would be open for the police authorities, of course, subject to all the rights and contentions of respondent No. 5 as also the customs authorities, to proceed further in accordance with law in connection with such FIRs. For such purpose, we hereby provide that the police authorities shall remove their seals on the bonded warehouse to enable customs authorities to complete their enquiry. It would, however, be the duty of the customs authorities to ensure that the goods lying in the warehouse are not permitted to be taken out. They shall also ensure that the necessary records are taken in their custody and are made available for future reference. Once the enquiry is over, the result thereof may also be communicated to the police authorities by the customs authorities.

Once the same is done, it would be open for the police authorities to take further steps as may be available under the law in connection with Prohibition C.R. No. 5449 of 2012. We are informed that the concerned parties have or are in the process of filing quashing petitions. We have expressed no opinion on the nature of the allegations made in the FIRs or on the jurisdiction of the police authorities and it would be open for the aggrieved parties to raise all contentions in appropriate proceedings before appropriate court. With the above directions, the petition is disposed of.