Swastik Overseas & Ors. vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.

Held

The Court held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. The primary contention of the petitioners regarding the classification of goods and the reliance on the Chartered Engineer's certificate were issues to be considered by the Commissioner of Customs, Noida, not by the Delhi High Court. The Court found that the entire cause of action arose at ICD, Dadri, which falls outside its territorial jurisdiction. The Court distinguished the cited precedents. The Full Bench decision in Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. was interpreted to mean that while a minuscule part of the cause of action can confer jurisdiction, the doctrine of forum conveniens must also be considered, and in this case, the original authority and place of detention were outside Delhi. The Supreme Court decision in Bakshish Ahmad was deemed not applicable as it did not dismiss the petition on territorial grounds. The Division Bench decision in M/s Meever India Private Limited was found to squarely apply, where despite challenging a Delhi-based circular, the petition was dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction as the core issue related to activities outside Delhi. Therefore, the petition was dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction.

Facts

The petitioners, Swastik Overseas & Ors., imported designer and decorative stainless-steel coils from China. These goods were seized at ICD, Dadri, Uttar Pradesh, under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs, Noida. The seizure was based on the grounds that the goods were not classified under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 73269060 as claimed by the petitioners and that BIS certification under IS 6911 was required as per the Steel Control Order. The petitioners sought to set aside the seizure memos, release of the seized goods, and a direction to the respondents not to rely on a Chartered Engineer's certificate for classification. The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding territorial jurisdiction.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Delhi High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition, considering the goods were seized at ICD, Dadri, Uttar Pradesh, under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs, Noida, and the cause of action arose there? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that the all-India headquarters of the Customs Commissionerate is in Delhi, and ICD, Dadri is a regional unit of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) whose headquarters is in Delhi. They relied on the Full Bench decision in Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. v. Union of India to argue that a writ petition is maintainable if even a minuscule part of the cause of action arises within the court's jurisdiction. They also cited Bakshish Ahmad v. Union of India & Ors. for jurisdiction regarding detention of goods. Furthermore, they argued that the detention was contrary to CBIC policy regarding Chartered Engineer (CE) empanelment and that the CE certificate was wrongly relied upon for classification, with similar goods being cleared elsewhere. Respondents' arguments: The respondents raised a preliminary objection of territorial jurisdiction, relying on the decision in M/s Meever India Private Limited v. Union of India & ors.