Back
P. B. BAJANTHRI, ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
Assam Supari Traders – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
P. B. Bajanthri, J.—The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:—
“(i) Quashing of the Seizure dated 02.04.2024 corresponding to Unit Case No. 01/KNE/ 2024 – 25 whereby 24,288 Kgs of Dried Areca Nuts contained in 352 bags along with ASHOK LEYLAND Truck Bearing Registration No. TN – 29BY 3638, in the course of inter state transportation, has been seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act for alleged violation of Section 7, 11, 46 and 47 of Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3 (2) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992;
(ii) Vacation of the Seizure order dated 02.04.2024 and consequential discharge of the Bank Guarantee and the bond furnished by the petitioner to secure the provisional release of the seized goods; and
(iii) Restraining the Respondents from giving effect to and taking any coercive action arising out of Seizure dated 02.04.2024 during the pendency of the present writ application and/or without the leave of this Hon’ble Court.”
2. The petitioner is a registered dealer / trader in the name of M/s Assam Supari Traders. He is in possession of GST Number i.e. GSTIN/UIN No.18ABQFA3393P1ZK issued by the competent authority. He is employed in the bu
Seizure of goods under the Customs Act requires objective evidence to establish 'reason to believe' that goods are of foreign origin; mere suspicion or subjective opinions are insufficient.
The court emphasized that interference at the stage of issuance of show cause notice should be rare and not in a routine manner, and the availability of alternative remedy should be considered before....
The customs authorities must establish credible material supporting a belief that goods are of foreign origin before seizure; failure to do so renders the seizure unlawful.
The court validated the customs authority's seizure of goods based on reasonable suspicion, upholding the impossibility of judicial review on the sufficiency of the officer's reasons.
Section 123 of Act, 1962 provides that where any goods included under Sub-section 2 of Section 123 are seized on basis of reasonable belief that same are smuggled goods, then burden of proving that t....
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
