TMI Blog2012 (2) TMI 607X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. Furthermore, the impugned confiscation notice dated 18.11.2011 issued u/s 124 of the Act during the pendency of this writ petition is based merely on the aforesaid seizure, which has already been held to be illegal, arbitrary and perverse and hence when the base, namely the seizure goes every structure thereon including the confiscation notice also will have to follow - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12738 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 28-2-2012 - Hon ble Mr. Justice S.N. Hussain For the petitioner : Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, Advocate. For the respondents : Ms. Archana Meenakshee, Advocate. P R E S E N T O R D E R This writ petition has been filed on 04.08.2011 by the petitioner challenging the seizure memo dated 07.06.2011 (Annexure-5) issued by the Customs (Prev.) Division, Muzaffarpur by which 29,336 Kgs. of betel nuts and two trucks bearing Registration Nos.UP-32-CZ/3395 and UP-78-AT/2212 were seized under section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act‟ for the sake of brevity) for alleged violation of Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Notification No.9-Cus/96 dated 22 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Annexure-A has already been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-5 and Annexure-B is of a much subsequent date 18.11.2011 and had been given merely to circumvent the provision of section 110 (2) of the Act according to which if no show-cause notice is given within six months of the seizure, the goods had to be returned. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also argued that the facts of this case are exactly similar to the facts of the earlier case bearing C.W.J.C. No.11938 of 2011, which was decided on 14.11.2011, except only that during the pendency of that writ petition a show-cause notice in confiscation proceeding had been issued. He also argued that the aforesaid show-cause notice is absolutely frivolous and when the base, namely the seizure goes, every structure thereon including confiscation also goes. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in case of Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited and others v. Ananta Saha and others, reported in (2011) 5 Supreme Court Cases 142 as well as a decision of a Bench of this court in case of Yogendra Prasad v. The Union of India Ors, reported in 2004(4) PLJR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder of seizure and the show-cause notice of confiscation should not be entertained at this stage as a civil action has been brought into action by the seizure and Chapter XIV, XIV-A and XV of the Act lay down a complete statutory framework under which a civil action initiated under the Act has to be determined and hence this process of law cannot be thwarted under writ jurisdiction. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents also stated that there were grounds available and sufficient reasons to believe at the time of seizure that seized betel nuts being transported on the trucks concerned were smuggled goods, as the authorities had specific informations that two trucks loaded with betel nuts of third country origin were coming from Purnia side and going to Kanpur and the said trucks were found parked near Teghra and on seizure the driver produced two envelopes containing original and duplicate copies of tax invoice issued by Assam Agro Trading Gayari in favour of Salasar Traders Delhi and money receipt issued by Market Yard Dhupguri and transport receipt issued by Matro Transport Siliguri and transport builty mentioning the petitioner as consigner and tax invoice issued by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itlement of any person to export the goods during the pendency of the statutory adjudication. Hence, the said decision does not interpret the provisions of law in any way affecting the aforesaid claim of the petitioner and the specific provisions of law. 14. The respondents have claimed that they had issued memos to the petitioner informing him that the trucks in question loaded with betel nuts had been detained and the matter was being investigated, but without even waiting for petitioner s reply the respondents seized the trucks in question along with the betel nuts loaded on them assuming that the betel nuts loaded on the trucks were brought from Nepal. The respondents have enumerated the papers obtained from the drivers of the seized trucks but none of them could show that either the consignment had come from Nepal or it was of a third country origin, rather the said documents clearly showed that the consignment was from Maa Saraswati Traders of Dhupguri, West Bengal (petitioner) sent to M/s M.L. International, New Delhi through the trucks in question. 15. The petitioner has been able show that it was a firm having its office at Dhupguri (West Bengal) with VAT RC No.1983 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt 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 solid foundation than in the case o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of law. 21. In this connection learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon a decision of a Bench of this court in case of Bikaner-Assam Road Lines India Limited Ors.(supra), but the facts of that case is completely different from the facts of this case and the said court in paragraph-15 of its order had specifically stated that the meaning of the word reasonable belief is well settled and the question as to whether in a particular case the grounds are sufficient to form a reasonable belief that the goods are smuggled ones or not, depends upon the facts of each case and as such decision in another case having different sets of facts that the grounds are not sufficient to form a reasonable belief that the goods are smuggled goods cannot be a binding precedence in the other case and the conclusion has to be arrived at on appreciation of the evidence available in the case in hand. In the said circumstances the respondents cannot take benefit of the said decision. 22. The documents on record clearly show that the petitioner was not only the consignor but also the transporter of articles in question arranging the trucks from Mandies for reaching betel nuts to their d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
