Case Background
The two writ petitions were heard together as they arose from one seizure transaction and were argued by the same counsel.
In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8737 of 2020, the petitioner claimed to be a trader in black pepper. Customs authorities seized 14,199.400 kilograms of black pepper loaded on three trucks. The value of the seized pepper was assessed at Rs. 70,99,700.
The three vehicles involved were trucks bearing registration numbers UK 06 CA 7293, UP 22 AT 3829 and UP 21 CN 1300. Customs valued these trucks at Rs. 9,50,100, Rs. 16,59,935 and Rs. 16,80,000 respectively.
According to the judgment, the first truck was seized initially. The remaining two trucks were later located on the basis of a statement made by the trader. On this factual aspect, the trader and the customs authorities gave differing versions, but the Court did not go into that controversy.
The core allegation of the customs department was that the black pepper carried in these trucks was “of third country origin” and was being transported in contravention of the Customs Act. On this basis the pepper and the vehicles were seized.
The second writ petition, Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8740 of 2020, was filed by the truck owners. Their grievance depended entirely on the fate of the seizure of the pepper. The Court recorded that the trucks could be released only if the seizure of the black pepper itself was found to be illegal.
During pendency of the writ proceedings, the Additional Commissioner-cum-Adjudicating Authority passed a confiscation order dated 15.06.2021 under Section 122 of the Customs Act. This order confiscated the seized black pepper and dealt with the trucks as well. The trader challenged this confiscation order by filing an interlocutory application in the pending writ petition.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The key question before the Patna High Court was whether it should, in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, interfere with the customs seizure and the subsequent confiscation order.
The trader’s side first attacked the very foundation of the seizure. They argued that the customs officers did not have “reasons to believe” as required under Section 110 of the Customs Act before seizing the goods and vehicles. In their submission, without such valid “reasons to believe”, the seizure was illegal and without jurisdiction.
The trader claimed that he was a bona fide purchaser of the black pepper from M/s F.M. Food Processing and Agro Based Industries. He asserted that he had bought a total of 45,000 kilograms of pepper under two invoices dated 01.07.2018 and that the seized stock was part of this legitimate purchase.
As per his version, the black pepper was being shifted from his godown in Patna to a storage facility at Sarai Bazar in Vaishali district. He said this transfer became necessary because of heavy rainfall and water-logging in Patna city.
On this basis, the trader argued that customs had no material to assume that the goods were smuggled or of third country origin. He submitted that a lawful seizure is a condition precedent for any confiscation under the Customs Act and, as the initial seizure was unlawful, the later confiscation order dated 15.06.2021 must also fall.
He further challenged the confiscation order on merits. The order, he said, was primarily based on statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. Many of those statements were later retracted by the persons who had given them. Despite this, the adjudicating authority allegedly treated them as reliable and concluded that the goods were of third country origin.
The trader therefore argued that there was “no material” to establish that the seized pepper was smuggled or of foreign origin and that the confiscation order was unsustainable.
On the other hand, the Union of India and customs officers, represented by the Additional Solicitor General and other counsel, resisted the writ petitions.
Their primary submission was that, once a full-fledged confiscation order had been passed under Section 122 of the Customs Act after hearing the parties, it was not open to the petitioners to continue challenging the initial seizure in writ jurisdiction on the ground of lack of “reasons to believe”.
The respondents pointed out that the adjudicating authority had completed inquiry, considered the material on record, and passed a reasoned confiscation order. If the petitioners were aggrieved by the conclusions or the quality of evidence, their remedy was by way of appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act to the Commissioner (Appeals), and not by inviting the High Court to re-appreciate evidence in a writ petition.
The customs side argued that the High Court’s role in judicial review is to see whether there is at least some material and whether due procedure has been followed, not to test the sufficiency of evidence as an appellate authority would. They also termed retraction of statements by some noticees as irrelevant for writ purposes.
The respondents further highlighted that, contrary to the trader’s claim, both the alleged supplier of the pepper and the owner of the storage godown at Sarai Bazar had denied his assertions in their statements recorded under Section 108. These depositions, they contended, were material that supported the confiscation order.
The Court then addressed the reliance placed by the petitioners on an earlier Patna High Court judgment, Yogendra Prasad v. Union of India, 2004 (4) PLJR 675. In that case, the Court had interfered with a customs seizure because the petitioner was in possession of a bill of entry issued by the customs department itself for the very goods seized, and there was no material to support any suspicion of smuggling.
The present Court carefully distinguished that precedent. It noted that Yogendra Prasad was a “no evidence” case where there was unimpeachable documentary proof in favour of the petitioner. In contrast, the present matter involved contested facts, disputed evidence, and arguments about insufficiency of material. Therefore, the earlier ruling could not be applied to justify interference here.
Justice Madhuresh Prasad then turned to the settled principles of judicial review. The judgment recounted that under Article 226, the High Court mainly examines the decision-making process—whether authorities complied with the law and followed the correct procedure, and whether there is at least some supporting material.
If there is some material and no procedural illegality, the Court is not expected to test the correctness of the decision or the adequacy of the material like an appellate forum. Disputes over sufficiency or quality of evidence, or over retracted statements, fall outside the normal scope of writ jurisdiction.
Applying these principles, the Court found that there was material on record relied upon by the adjudicating authority in the confiscation order. The presence of this material, coupled with the absence of any alleged procedural irregularity, meant that the High Court should not interfere.
The judgment made it clear that the Court was not expressing any approval of the confiscation order dated 15.06.2021. Rather, it simply declined to sit in appeal over it in a writ petition. The correctness of that order, including issues relating to sufficiency of evidence and retracted statements, was left open to be argued before the appropriate appellate authority under the Customs Act.
On the question of alternative remedy, the Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in M/s Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., 2021 (6) SCC 771. That decision summarises when High Courts should or should not entertain writ petitions in the face of an available statutory appeal.
Quoting paragraph 27 of the Supreme Court judgment, the Patna High Court reiterated that, as a rule of policy and convenience, parties must generally exhaust their statutory remedies, especially when the dispute involves factual questions. Exceptions are limited to cases of violation of fundamental rights, breach of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or constitutional challenges to legislation.
In this case, none of those exceptions were invoked. There was no plea that the confiscation proceedings were without jurisdiction, that natural justice was denied, or that any law was unconstitutional. The core complaint was about appreciation of evidence.
The Court therefore held that the appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act was an efficacious alternative remedy. Since the confiscation order had been passed during pendency of the writ petitions, the Court observed that if the petitioners chose to file an appeal, they could raise the issue of limitation by referring to the pendency of the writ proceedings and the Court’s own suggestion about the remedy. The appellate authority would be obliged to consider this aspect.
In the final analysis, the Court refused to interfere with either the seizure of the black pepper and trucks or the confiscation order dated 15.06.2021. Both writ petitions were dismissed, but with liberty to the petitioners to pursue appeal under the Customs Act.
Why This Judgment Matters
This decision is significant for traders, transporters, and truck owners dealing with goods intercepted by customs or enforcement agencies.
First, it underlines that once a confiscation order is passed after adjudication, the High Court will rarely interfere in writ jurisdiction on disputes about sufficiency of evidence. The proper course is to use the statutory appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act.
Second, it shows that where facts are disputed, or statements are retracted, such issues are meant for the appellate authority to weigh, not for the High Court to re-evaluate under Article 226. This is important for anyone planning litigation strategy after a seizure.
Third, the judgment clarifies that earlier High Court rulings interfering with seizures, such as Yogendra Prasad, are confined to exceptional situations where there is virtually no evidence to support the seizure and strong, undisputed material in favour of the citizen.
Finally, the Court’s reference to the Supreme Court judgment in Radha Krishan Industries reinforces the general rule: when a statute like the Customs Act provides an appeal, parties must normally go through that route instead of directly invoking writ jurisdiction.
Legal Issues and Answers
-
Issue: Can the Patna High Court, in writ jurisdiction, set aside customs seizure and confiscation of black pepper and trucks on the ground that there were no valid “reasons to believe” and that the evidence was insufficient?
Answer: No. The Court held that there was some material on record and no procedural illegality. Questions about sufficiency or quality of evidence must be raised before the appellate authority under Section 128 of the Customs Act, not in a writ petition. -
Issue: Do earlier Patna High Court decisions like Yogendra Prasad compel interference with the present seizure?
Answer: No. The Court distinguished Yogendra Prasad as a case of complete absence of adverse material and presence of undisputed customs documents in favour of the petitioner, which was not the situation here. -
Issue: Should the High Court entertain the writ petitions when an efficacious statutory appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act is available?
Answer: Generally no. Relying on M/s Radha Krishan Industries, the Court held that the appeal is the appropriate remedy, especially where the controversy turns on disputed facts and appreciation of evidence.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Yogendra Prasad v. Union of India, 2004 (4) PLJR 675 – cited and distinguished on facts.
- M/s Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., 2021 (6) SCC 771 – relied upon for principles on alternative statutory remedy and limits of writ jurisdiction.
Case Details
Case Numbers: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8737 of 2020; Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8740 of 2020
Case Title: Md Sajid @ Saillu v. Union of India & Ors.; Indriyas Masih & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 (2) PLJR 213
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice Madhuresh Prasad
Date of Judgment: 09.03.2022
Advocates for Petitioners: Mr Saket Gupta, Advocate (in both writ petitions)
Advocates for Respondents: Dr K. N. Singh, Additional Solicitor General; Mr Anshuman Singh, Senior Standing Counsel, Customs; Mr Manoj Kumar Singh, Central Government Counsel (in both writ petitions)
Respondent Authorities: Union of India through Chief Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Additional Commissioner-cum-Adjudicating Authority, Deputy Commissioner Customs (Preventive), Deputy Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), and Intelligence Officer, DRI, all in the State of Bihar.
Statutory Provisions Involved: Section 110, Section 108, Section 122, and Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962; Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Nature of the Case: Writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging customs seizure of black pepper and trucks, and, by interlocutory application, challenging the subsequent confiscation order passed under the Customs Act.
Outcome: Writ petitions dismissed; seizure and confiscation order dated 15.06.2021 not interfered with; liberty reserved to petitioners to avail appellate remedy under Section 128 of the Customs Act, with observation that the appellate authority should consider the effect of pendency of the writ petitions on limitation.
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
