TMI Blog2011 (11) TMI 662X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t case neither there is any trade opinion nor any significant decisive difference has been found and hence the seized betel nuts cannot be said with certainty to be of foreign origin - in view of absence of any material to show that the goods were smuggled goods or were of any third country origin, the respondents authorities should not have detained the truck and betel nuts loaded on it nor they should have seized the same which acts are clearly violative of the well settled principles of law. Petition allowed - the impugned order of detention and seizure of the betel nuts and the truck on which it was loaded are hereby quashed - decided in favor of petitioner-importer. - Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12197 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 14-11-2011 - MR. S.N. HUSSAIN J. For the Petitioners: Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mrs. Archana Sinha, Jr. Standing Counsel. O R D E R Petitioner no.1 is a trader registered under the relevant taxation rules and deals in retail sale and export of betel nuts and is the owner of consignment in question, namely 15,960 Kgs. of betel nuts contained in 266 bags lo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibly after seizure of the goods, whereas there is nothing else to show that the betel nuts in question were of foreign origin. He also stated that there is no prohibition for importing betel nuts from Nepal and the only prohibition is that it should not have been imported to Nepal from any third country. In this regard, he relied upon a decision of the Division Bench of this court in case of Commissioner, Custom Department, Government of India, Patna vs. Dwarika Prasad Agarwal Ors., reported in 2009 (2) P.L.J.R. 858. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that in exercise of powers conferred by section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 read with paragraph-2.1 of the foreign Trade Policy 2004-09, the Central Government made amendments in Schedule-I (Imports) of the I.T.C. (HS) Classifications of Export and Import Items vide D.G.F.T. Notification No.15 (RE-2008)/2004-2009 dated 04.06.2008 by which import was permitted freely, provided that the value of the betel nuts, either whole or split or ground or even others, was ₹ 35.00 per kg. and above. In the instant case the value of the betel nuts according to the petitioners was ͅ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nces reasons to believe existed at the time of seizure of the goods, which were substantiated later on. 10. Finally learned counsel for the respondents stated that under section 110 of the Act, the goods in question can be directed to be released on furnishing securities but the proceeding which has been initiated by the authorities concerned cannot be quashed as it is only a few months old and the petitioners have not even approached the authorities in connection thereof. 11. From the arguments raised on behalf of learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record it is quite apparent that the consignment and the truck were seized on the ground that the betel nuts were smuggled from Nepal. It is also apparent from the records that although all the documents concerned with respect to the truck and betel nuts loaded on it, showing that the goods belonged to petitioner no.1 (a registered trader) and had been booked on the truck of petitioner no.2 (a registered transporter) from Guwahati for being delivered to one M/s Maa Padmawati Traders Nagpur were available with the authorities, but without considering the same they relied upon frivolous and baseless statement w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion of a Bench of Bombay High Court in case of M.G. Abrol vs. Amichand Vallamji, reported in A.I.R. 1961 Bombay 227 in which it has been held as follows:- The Customs Officers should seize the goods covered by S. 178A in a reasonable belief that they are smuggled goods before the burden of proving that they are not smuggled goods could be on the person from whose possession such goods were seized. This position would be very much clear if it can be contrasted with a case where Customs Officer seizes any of such goods merely on suspicion that they are smuggled. A suspicion can arise from peculiar kind of movement on the part of the person who is supposed to be in possession of some smuggled goods. It may arise from the kind of dealing that the person might be having in regard to certain goods, which the Customs Officer might thereupon subject to be smuggled. One may conceive of a number of other ways in which a suspicion may arise in the mind of the Customs Officer that any particular person is possessed of smuggled goods. A belief, on the other hand, cannot arise merely in the circumstances in which a suspicion can arise. A belief in the existence of a thing requires a more so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
