Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2019 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 1027 - HC - CustomsInterpretation of statute - meaning of the expression ‘reason to believe’ and ‘liable to confiscation’ under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 - import of prohibited goods - betel nuts - cut dried Areca Nuts (dark pink in colour) - petitioners’ application for release of the goods stood rejected for the reason that the prescribed authority had got the seized sample of the product tested from the laboratories which was classified as unsafe food. HELD THAT:- The consignor and the consignee are recorded and are identified. The goods are not seized at any notified custom zone or area. Save and except for what is recorded in the seizure memo, there is no other material available on record. The learned Additional Solicitor General has tried to supplement the reasons for formation of ‘reason to believe’, which also are on mere suspicion, through the affidavit of the authority - A general practice in trade cannot be, ipso facto, applied and adopted to the instant case, for unless it is shown that the act and the conduct of the petitioner makes him to be a part and parcel of the trading community, based in the area or dealing with the illegal activities of such like nature. There is no track record of past history of the instant petitioners. While dealing with the expression ‘reason to believe’ in relation to another confiscatory statute, i.e. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, S. B. Sinha J., in Aslam Mohammad Merchant Versus Competent Authority and others, (2008) 14 SCC 186 [2008 (7) TMI 852 - SUPREME COURT], opined that proper application of mind on the part of the competent authority is imperative prior to issuance of a show cause notice, intending to confiscate the goods. Also there has to be some material leading to formation of some opinion or reason to believe for such action cannot be taken on mere ipse dixit and roving enquiry is not contemplated in law - In the Bar Council of Maharashtra versus M. V. Dabholkar and others, (1976) 2 SCC 291, Krishna Iyer J., has observed that ‘reason to believe’ cannot be converted into a formalised procedural roadblock, it being essentially a barrier against frivolous enquiries. We find no reason to take a contrary view, more so, when the goods in question are yet raw, as an unfinished product, meant to be transported to another State for it to be processed and packaged, whereafter, only, eventually sold in an open market and if the goods are actually unsafe food then it is not the provision of the Customs Act which can be invoked, for not falling within its purview. Petition allowed.
|