Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
Shambhu Prasad Singh and Shiveshwar Prasad Sinha JJ.
Rara Brothers
Versus
M.L.Dey
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 890 of 1973 ;
Decided On : DECEMBER 05, 1973
CUSTOMS ACT - Section 110 - Seizure of goods - Reasonable belief - Burden of proof - Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 (Act 7 of 1947), Section 8 - Held, the seizure of goods under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 is valid only if the proper officer has a reasonable belief at the time of seizure that the goods are liable to confiscation. The burden of proving that the notified goods were not smuggled goods lies on the person from whose possession the goods were seized.
Fact of the Case:
The Customs authorities seized silver coins and melted silver belonging to the petitioner, alleging that they were smuggled goods. The petitioner challenged the seizure, contending that the authorities had no reasonable belief at the time of seizure that the goods were liable to confiscation.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Customs authorities did not have a reasonable belief at the time of seizure that the goods were liable to confiscation. The Court noted that the authorities had received secret information that the petitioner was purchasing silver and silver coins in Nepal and was likely to smuggle them into India at Galgalia. However, the Court found that the authorities did not act upon this information by trying to catch the petitioner at or near Galgalia. Instead, they stopped the petitioner's car at Rampur, which was not on the route from Galgalia to the petitioner's destination. The Court also noted that the authorities had not searched the petitioner's car or examined the goods before seizing them. The Court concluded that the seizure was illegal and ordered the authorities to return the goods to the petitioner.
Issues: Whether the Customs authorities had a reasonable belief at the time of seizure that the goods were liable to confiscation.
Ratio Decidendi: The seizure of goods under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 is valid only if the proper officer has a reasonable belief at the time of seizure that the goods are liable to confiscation. The burden of proving that the notified goods were not smuggled goods lies on the person from whose possession the goods were seized.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition and directed the Customs authorities to return the seized goods to the petitioner.
S.P.Sinha, J.
1. This application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the seizure of silver coins and melted silver belonging to petitioner no. 1, by the Customs authorities at Forebesganj, District Purnea and the prayer is that the goods seized be returned forthwith and a writ of mandamus be issued upon the respondents, namely, the Customs authorities, from taking any further steps against the petitioners in the matter of the said silver coins and melted silver. The facts as per the affidavits filed on behalf of the petitioners to this writ petition are as under; petitioner no. 1, M/s. Rara Brothers is a partnership firm carrying on business at Nalbari in the District of Kamrup, Assam. In course of its trade and business it purchases old silver ornaments, coins and melts the ornaments into Thakkas . Calcutta is one of the places where these goods are sold by petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 2, Mahabir Pd. Jain, is one of the partners in the aforesaid firm and petitioner No. 3, Parmeshwar Singh, is one of the employees of petitioner No. 1. For the purposes of carrying on its business and despatch of silver from Nalbari to Calcutta, either by means of car or any other vehicles, a general power of attorney and affidavit dated the 28th of July 1972 at Nalbari has been executed by petitioner No. 1 in favour of petitioner No. 3 which the latter carries along with himself whenever he moves with the articles of the firm to Calcutta or any other place.
2. On the 15th of June, 1973 certain old silver ornaments, Thakkas and silver coins were decided to be sent to Calcutta on an ambassador car, bearing registration no. WMA 2521 from Nalbari to Calcutta, the distance between the two places being about 900 miles. Having so decided, on the 16th of June, 1973, petitioner no. 1, issued a challan in the name of petitioner no. 3 for the carriage of the articles mentioned therein. The challan was signed by one Ghisalal Jain, accountant of petitioner No. 1 and also by Parmeshwar Singh, petitioner no. 3 in whose custody the said articles were put for being carried to Calcutta. It is said that the said car WMA 2521 left Nalbari in the morning hours of the 16th of June, 1973 loaded with the silver articles and occupied by four persons, namely, (1) Mahendra Chandra Tallukdar (the driver), (2) Satya Deo Mahto (Khalasi), (3) Parmeshwar Singh (Petitioner No. 3) and (4) Naresh Kumar Jain. The car proceeded on its journey to Calcutta by National High Way no. 31 which passess through Cooch Behar, Siliguri, Kishanganj, Rampur, on to Calcutta. This National High way does not pass through any foreign territory nor it crosses any border check post of foreign territory. There are of course several inter-State check posts of the States of Assam, Bengal, and Bihar on the said National Highway. At about 2.30 P.M. on the 17th of June, 1973 the said car reached near Rampur check post. At the said check post respondent no. 1 who is the Superintendent of Customs posted at Forbesganj, stopped the car. Respondent no. 1 was accompanied by respondent nos. 2 to 5, who are Inspectors of Customs. On having learnt that the car was carrying silver, they asked for the relevant documents concerning the goods contained in the car. According to the petitioners, the challan was duly shown to them, but they did not permit the car to move towards its onward journey. The silver goods were thereafter taken out of the car and put by the respondents in a jeep for taking it to Kishanganj. Petitioner No. 3 got into the same jeep and the other members of his party following the jeep in the car to Kishanganj. At Kishanganj the article were kept in the Customs office. It is stated on behalf of the petitioners that when petitioner no. 3 demanded receipt of the articles which the respondents had taken out from the Car, WMA 2521, he was threatened by them with arrest and dire consequences. Petitioner no. 3 and his companions were even asked to leav
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
