PATNA HIGH COURT
S.N.Jha and N.P.Singh JJ.
Angou Golmei
Versus
Vizovolie Chakha Sang
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction No. 419 of 1993 ; 474 of 1993 ;
Decided On : APRIL 22, 1994
CUSTOMS ACT - SEIZURE - REASONABLE BELIEF - GOODS LIABLE TO CONFISCATION - SEIZURE OF CLOVES AND JAVITRI - BELIEF THAT SPICES ARE NOT GROWN IN MANIPUR OR NAGALAND - NO REASONABLE BASIS - SEIZURE QUASHED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the validity of seizure of cloves and javitri. They claimed monopoly rights for working of cloves in Manipur and settlement of cloves and Javitri Mahals in Nagaland. The goods were detained and later seized by the Customs authorities at Barauni Railway Station. The petitioners contended that the seizure was not based on reasonable belief that the goods were liable to confiscation under the Customs Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the seizure was based on a general belief that cloves are not grown in Manipur or Nagaland and, therefore, coming as they do from Dimapur they must have been smuggled from outside i.e. across the Indo-Burman border. The court held that this belief was not reasonable as there was no evidence to support it. The court also found that the trade opinions of certain local traders, which were initially relied upon by the department as a basis for the belief regarding the contraband nature of the goods, were later given up during the course of hearing.
Issues: Whether the seizure of cloves and javitri was based on reasonable belief that the goods were liable to confiscation under the Customs Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the seizure was not based on reasonable belief as there was no evidence to support the belief that the cloves and javitri were of foreign origin. The court also found that the trade opinions of certain local traders, which were initially relied upon by the department as a basis for the belief regarding the contraband nature of the goods, were later given up during the course of hearing.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitions and quashed the seizure of the goods.
S.N.Jha, J.
1. The petitioner have challenged the validity of seizure of the goods, namely, cloves and javitri. They also seek direction to the respondents to permit them to carry on trade and business in cloves, javitri and other items. The controversy in the two writ petitions being identical, they have been heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Shorn of details, the petitioner in Cri. W.J.C. No. 419 of 1993 claims to be holder of monopoly rights for working of cloves in the State of Manipur for the period of two years effective from 23rd October, 1992. The petitioners in Cr. W.J.C. No. 474 of 1993 claim to be settles of the cloves and the Javitri Mahals in the State of Nagaland for the period of one year ending on 9th September 1992. On the basis of the settlement aforesaid, according to them, they collect articles and despatch them to different places by air or mail on payment of royalty to the respective Government, namely, Government of Manipur and Nagaland. As Manipur is not connected to other places of the country by air or rail, the goods are brought to Dimapur and then transported out. The movement of goods within and outside the State is on the basis of Transit passes granted by the officers of the Forest Department. On account of absence of direct air or rail link as aforesaid, it is said, the Manipur Government has entered into an understanding with the Nagaland Government for issue of Transit passes to cover the onward journey of the goods from Dimapur. In other words, whenever the goods are to be taken out of the State of Manipur, a Transit pass is first issued by a competent authority of Manipur State and when the goods reach the State of Nagaland, the authorities of that State in lieu of the Transit passes issued by the Manipur administration issue separate Transit passes of the State of Nagaland and the goods are booked for onward journey by air or rail or by road on the basis of the Transit passes so issued by the authorities of the Nagaland Government.
3. The petitioners have given details of Transit passes and bookings etc. relating to the impugned consignments of goods, which are not necessary to be stated for the purpose of this case. It may only be stated that the goods were detained and later seized by the Customs authorities, at Barauni Railway Station. The details of their detention and seizure will be mentioned later at the appropriate place in this judgment. The petitioners made representation. Their claim was supported by the Government of Manipur and Nagaland and but the goods were not released and, in the circumstances, the writ petitions were filed on 6th July, 1994 and 26th July, 1993.
4. In these writ petitions the petitioners have only challenged the seizure and not the confiscation proceedings. However, since a valid seizure is a sine qua non of the confiscation proceeding this court directed that the final order in the confiscation proceedings will not be passed but the pendency of the writ petitions will not be a ground for the petitioners to abstain from the confiscation proceedings.
5. Power of seizure of goods is contained in Sec. 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, the relevant part of which reads as follows :-
"(1) If the proper officer has reason to believe that any goods are liable to confiscation under this Act, he may seize such goods."
The principal point for consideration is whether there was reasonable belief on the part of the seizing officer that the goods in question were liable to confiscation under the said Act.
6 A question arose during course of hearing as to whether consequent upon repeal of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947 by the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulations) Act, 1992 (Act 22 of 1992) there is any restriction on the import of cloves. However, in view of the provisions of Sec. 3(3) and Sec. 4 of the 1992 Act read with the relevant entry, namely, item 8 of Part II of Schedule II of the Schedule, the Import and Export Po
Calcutta Discound Col. Ltd. V/s. Income Tax Officer
Collector Of Customs And Central Excise, West Bengal V/s. Hindustan Motors Limited
M.G. Abrol V/s. Amichand Vallamji
M.G. Abrol V/s. Santilal Chhotelal And Co.
Sheonath Singh V/s. Appellate Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) Calcutta
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.