Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010059602025 2025:GAU-AS:4844 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1653/2025 PICKLU PAUL S/O SHRI DULAL KRISHNA PAUL, R/O ROY NAGAR, KARIMGANJ, ASSAM- 788710 AND PROPRIETOR OF M/S P.P JEWELLERS, STATION ROAD, OPPOSITE PNB, KARIMGANJ-788710, ASSAM VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE REVENUE SECRETARY, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001 2:THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS COMMISSIONERATE OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) CUSTOMS HOUSE 3RD FLOOR 15/1 STRAND ROAD KOLKATA-700001 WEST BENGAL 3:THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS O/O THE COMMISSIONERATE OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) CUSTOMS HOUSE 3RD FLOOR 15/1 STRAND ROAD KOLKATA-700001 WEST BENGA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR N DASGUPTA, MR H DAS Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, CUSTOMS Page No.# 2/8 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER Date :23.04.2025 1. Heard Mr. N Dasgupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned standing counsel, Customs. 2. The present writ petition is filed with the following prayer: “To issue rule by directing the respondents to show cause why the show cause notice dated 04.08.2023 and the consequential order in original dated 18.02.2025, imposing a penalty for Rupees One Crore under Section 112(a)/(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 should not be set aside as legally unsustainable. The impugned order dated 18.02.2025 is based solely on retracted statements of accused persons, without allowing the petitioner to cross-examine them and the seizure witnesses, violating section 138B of the said act and principles of Natural Justice. Additionally, the penalty suffers from vagueness and lacks specific findings on the alleged contravention, making it arbitrary and excessive.” 3. Thus from the aforesaid, it is seen that the fundamental challenge is the show cause notice dated 04.08.2023 and Order-in- Original dated 18.02.2025, and the ground of such challenge is that the petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity of hearing by allowing him to cross-examine the co-accused based on whose statement, the impugned Order-In-Original was passed. Page No.# 3/8 4. Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned counsel representing the respondent, Customs Department has raised two preliminary objections as to the maintainability of the present writ petition for want of jurisdiction of this court and for having alternative efficacious remedy of appeal under the Customs Act. According to him, no cause of action had arose within the jurisdiction of this court. It is his contention that the alleged smuggled gold was seized in the state of West Bengal and the adjudicatory authority whose action is challenged is in the state of West Bengal. The petitioner surrendered to the jurisdiction of such authority and had also filed objection and accordingly, the impugned show cause notice and order(s) were also issued/passed in the state of West Bengal. Therefore, no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this court. 5. Per contra, Mr. Dasgupta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the impugned show cause notice and impugned order(s) were issued by the customs authority having jurisdiction within the state of West Bengal, however, admittedly, the allegation is to the effect that original transaction took place in the Karimganj district in the State of Assam and the petitioner’s shop is situated at Karimganj, which is the in the state of Assam and the alleged transportation was also done through state of Assam and therefore, when a part of cause of action had arose within the jurisdiction of this court, this court shall have jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition. 6. I have given anxious considerations to the arguments Page No.# 4/8 advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 7. It is true that Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India allows a High Court to exercise its power, to issue writs, even if the authority or person against whom the writ is sought is outside its territorial jurisdiction, as long as the cause of action or part of it arises within its territorial jurisdiction. It is also equally well settled that a small portion of cause of action within the High Court’s jurisdiction is sufficient to trigger its power to issue writs. 8. Cause of action is the bundle of facts that are necessary to be proved to obtain a relief or a judgment in favour of the petitioner, more particularly, the material facts which are essential. Material facts are those facts which are necessary to establish the right to relief. 9. Now coming to the case in hand, what is challenge in this writ petition, is the impugned show cause notice dated 04.08.2023 by DRI authorities and the impugned order dated 18.02.2025, passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs (Preventive). 10. For deciding the issue of want of jurisdiction, it is necessary to record the contention raised in this writ petition to establish the territorial jurisdiction of this court. 11. The petitioner has filed an additional affidavit as regards the grounds of jurisdiction. The cause of action and the territorial jurisdiction by this court pleaded in the additional affidavit can be summarized as follows: I. The petitioner hails from Karimganj, Assam and Page No.# 5/8 is seriously prejudiced by the impugned order dated 18.02.2025; II. The impugned order dated 18.02.2025, show, origin and dispatch of the gold from Karimganj, Assam; III. Search was conducted at petitioner’s business premises in Karimganj, Assam; IV. The statement of the petitioner under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 was recorded at Karimganj; V. The smuggling allegations were rooted in Karimganj. 12. Therefore, part of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of this court. 13. Now therefore, let this court examine whether any of the aforesaid facts pleaded, would give rise to any part of cause of action at Karimganj for the purpose of conferring territorial jurisdiction upon this court. 14. It is the pleaded case that on 11.02.2023, 90 pieces of gold (weighing 18657 gms) were seized by the Revenue Intelligence (DRI) Officials from four co-accused persons at Dalkhola Railway Station, situated at West Bengal. Their statements were also recorded by the DRI. 15. The impugned show cause notice dated 04.08.2023 was issued by the Additional Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Kolkata Zonal Unit proposing confiscation of the gold seized. The petitioner filed a show cause reply on 27.10.2023 taking a stand that the accused individuals from whose possession Page No.# 6/8 the gold were allegedly seized, had falsely implicated the petitioner. Subsequently, the Order-In-Original dated 18.02.2025 was passed under section 112(a)/(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata. 16. The impugned order is challenged on the ground that the seizure statements were obtained in duress and the petitioner was not allowed to cross-examine the co-accused and seizure witness in derogation of section 138(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. Thus the impugned order in original dated 18.02.2025 lacks legal standing and was passed solely on unverified custodial statements of accused persons which were subsequently retracted. 17. Thus, the material cause of action and bundle of facts which are necessary to be proved to obtain a relief at the hands of this court is relatable to the procedure followed by the authorities under the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and also by the Customs Adjudicatory Authorities. The fundamental allegation is as regards violation of principles of natural justice by not allowing the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses by the Customs authorities while adjudicating the matter. The other facts required to be proved by the petitioner to grant him relief at the hands of this court is the conduct of the seizing authorities in recording the statement of the co-accused. 18. Thus from the aforesaid facts, the entire facts pleaded in support of the cause of action to challenge the impugned show cause notice dated 04.08.2023 and the impugned order in original dated 18.02.2025 has not at all arisen within the jurisdiction of this Page No.# 7/8 court. The gold were seized in the state of West Bengal by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Authorities having jurisdiction within the state of West Bengal, show cause notice was issued by the authorities having jurisdiction in the state of West Bengal and the impugned proceeding was conducted in the state of West Bengal, wherein the petitioner alleges violation of principles of natural justice and the impugned order is also passed by the Custom authorities having jurisdiction in the state of West Bengal. 19. 19. It is by now well settled that each and every fact does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that those facts give rise to a cause of action within this court’s territorial jurisdiction, unless those facts pleaded are such, which have a nexus or relevance with the lis that is involved in the case. 20. This court is of the considered opinion that the fact that the petitioner is carrying out business at Karimganj, that the allegedly smuggled goods were transported from Karimganj etc have no connection, whatsoever, with the allegation made by the petitioner that the seizure was illegally done, that the cross- examination was not allowed, that the impugned orders are having no legal standing. 21. To summarize, the case pleaded is alleged procedural lapse in the seizure as well as in passing the impugned order in original and not relatable in any way to the factum of residence of the petitioner in the state of Assam or to the fact that it was alleged that the gold was smuggled from the state of Assam. 22. Therefore, such facts as recorded above, in the opinion of Page No.# 8/8 this court, don’t give rise to any cause of action within the jurisdiction of this court to adjudicate the validity of the impugned order dated 18.02.2025 and show cause notice dated 04.08.2023. 23. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the present writ petition stands closed for want of jurisdiction by this court. The petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum as available under law. 24. In view of the aforesaid determination, there is no necessity to enter into the objection as to the maintainability for the reason of having alternative remedy of appeal under the Customs Act. JUDGE Comparing Assistant