RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.:–Heard Mr. Amit Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for the Union of India.

2. The petitioner in the present writ application seeks the following reliefs:—

(i) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the authorities to releae 23,660 kgs of Betel Nuts (Arecanuts) as evaluated at Rs. 67,33,163/- and a truck bearing Registration No. TN 25 BC/5209 as evaluated at Rs. 23,00,000/- which was seized vide Seizure Memo dated 06.02.2019 unconditionally; And/or

(ii) To direct the Respondent Authority to upkeep the condition and safety of goods so as to prevent deterioration in it’s value as the seized goods is a perishable goods; And/or

(iii) To issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the Seizure Order /Seizure Memo dated 06.02.2019 whereby and where under 23,660 Kgs. Of Betel Nuts (Arecanuts) as evaluated at Rs 67,33,163/- and a truck bearing Registration No. TN 25 BC/5209 as evaluated at Rs. 23,00,000/- was seized on 06.02.2019 and all consequential proceedings in pursuance of same’ And/or

(iv) To grant any other relief or reliefs to which the petitioners are entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner no. 1 is engaged in business of trade of Betel Nuts grown in North Eastern Region of the country and the petitioner no. 2 is Transporter of goods. On 06.02.2019 when a vehicle bearing Registration No. TN 25 BC / 5209 engaged by petitioner no. 2 for carrying the Betel Nuts of petitioner no. 1, it was detained by the officials of the Customs, Forbesganj under the office of the Commissioner of Customs (Prev), Patna near Haria Bara Toll Plaza, Araria and seized the Betel Nuts approximately 23660 kg valued at Rs. 67,33,163/- and the truck in question. A seizure memo was prepared wherein it has been recorded that the origin of goods is that of a third country/foreign origin but according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the seizure list nowhere discloses the name of the country from which the goods have been originated. Further that how the customs officials formed a belief that the goods were of foreign origin.

4. Learned counsel submits that the goods have been seized with reference to Notification No. 09 /1996-Cus (NT) dated 22.01.1996 issued under Section 11 of the Customs Act read with Section 3(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. The notification prohibits the imports of goods from Nepal which has been exported to Nepal from other country in India.

5. Learned counsel assailed the seizure on the ground that seizure of goods and conveyance has been done without having any reason to believe that the conveyance was carrying on any smuggled goods or the impugned goods were in any way liable for confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962. He has referred Section 106 of the Customs Act, 1962 to show that the power for search of conveyance would be available only in case the proper officer has reason to believe that any vehicle is being used in the smuggling of any goods and in the carrying of any goods which has been smuggled. It is submitted that the respondent authorities have asserted that they had specific information received from their Additional Commissioner over telephone that the Betel Nuts of third country or origin were being transported from Gauhati to Karnataka and getting upon the said information the Truck was intercepted. It is submitted that there was no authentic information that the respondent authorities which could be deemed to be actionable and upon which they proceeded to search of truck in question. It is further submitted that the internal information, if any, was required to be recorded in Form DRI-1. It’s authentication were required to be verified and then only action should have been taken.

6. Further learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the description given by the customs officials that the Areca Nuts are appearing as