Gauhati High Court Holds That Section 110A of Customs Act Exclusively Governs Release of Seized Vehicles — Criminal Court Jurisdiction Ousted

Background and Context

The Gauhati High Court recently adjudicated a significant question of law concerning jurisdictional competence: whether a regular criminal court is empowered to order the release of a vehicle seized by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) under the Customs Act, 1962, or whether such power vests exclusively in the adjudicating authority designated under the Act.

The matter arose from a criminal petition filed by the Union of India, represented by the DRI, challenging an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Court No. 3, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati in Misc. Case No. 133 of 2025. By that order dated 24.06.2025, the Additional Sessions Judge had directed the release of truck bearing registration No. AS-26-C-9100, which stood seized in connection with DRI Case No. 26/CL/IMP/CIG/DRI/GZU/2024-25 dated 18.02.2025.

Facts Leading to the Dispute

The Seizure

DRI officials intercepted the truck in the presence of two independent witnesses and found it carrying cigarettes of foreign origin on which customs duty had not been paid. Upon inspection, concealed cartons containing approximately 19,85,000 sticks of foreign-origin cigarettes were discovered inside the vehicle. Along with the truck, a white Tata Safari car, mobile phones belonging to the intercepted persons, and other relevant documents were inventoried and recorded in the seizure list.

Three individuals apprehended in connection with the incident were arrested and produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati, on 19.02.2025, whereupon they were remanded to judicial custody.

Application Before the Additional Sessions Judge

The respondent — the registered owner of the truck — filed an application under Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS, 2023) before the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Court No. 3, Kamrup (Metro), seeking the release of the seized vehicle.

The DRI filed a report before the Sessions Court maintaining that:

  • Custody and disposal of goods, including vehicles, seized under the Customs Act, 1962 fell exclusively within the jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority or proper officer under the Act.
  • A regular criminal court had no jurisdiction to entertain or decide such a prayer.
  • The seized vehicle had not been produced before the criminal court.

Despite these submissions, the Additional Sessions Judge, by the impugned order dated 24.06.2025 in Misc. Case No. 133 of 2025, directed the release of the truck in favour of the respondent, prompting the DRI to approach the Gauhati High Court.

Submissions Before the Gauhati High Court

DRI's Arguments

Learned counsel for the DRI advanced the following contentions before the High Court:

  1. Exclusive statutory vesting: Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 exclusively vests the power to provisionally release seized goods in the adjudicating authority. Once goods are seized under the Customs Act framework, the release mechanism must follow the same statutory path.

  2. Self-contained special legislation: The Customs Act, 1962 constitutes a complete and exhaustive special statute. It provides its own appellate mechanism under Sections 128, 129 and 130 for challenging orders of the proper officer or adjudicating authority. Recourse to general criminal procedure is therefore not warranted.

  3. Principle of generalia specialibus non derogant: Since the Customs Act is a special enactment and the BNSS, 2023 is a general law, the well-established legal maxim — that special law prevails over general law — applies squarely.

  4. Jurisdictional overreach: By directing the release of a vehicle seized under the Customs Act without competent authority under the Act, the Additional Sessions Judge exceeded the jurisdiction conferred upon that court by law.

The DRI placed reliance on two judicial precedents:

  • Bajender Singh Cheema versus the Union of India, WP(C) 4029 of 2018 — wherein the Gauhati High Court itself had directed the assessee to pursue the alternative remedy of appeal against orders under Section 110A of the Customs Act.