VINOD KUMAR GUPTA, J.

( 1 ) THE two petitioners claimed to be associated with Terai Tea Company Ltd. , Terai Overseas Ltd. , and East Indian Produce Limited and several other companies. The petitioners have their residence at No. 5, Lower Loudon Street, Calcutta. They also reside at 2nd Mile, Sevoke Road, Siliguri. The registered office of Terai Tea Company Limited is situated at 11, Government place, (East), Calcutta.

( 2 ) ON 15th May, 1996 at about 7. 10 A. M. , a team of Customs officers conducted search and seizure operations at the residential premises of the petitioners at 2nd Mile, Sevoke Road, Siliguri. The search and seizure operations were conducted purportedly on the basis of the search warrant issued in terms of Section 105 of the Customs Act. During the course of search and seizure operations certain documents were seized and taken away by the officers of the team which was responsible for conducting the search and seizure operations.

( 3 ) THE only relief which the petitioners seek in this petition is that this Court declare the aforesaid search of the petitioner's premises and the seizure of documents therefrom as illegal and being violative of Section 105 of the Customs Act, 1962. Section 105 of the Customs Act read as under :-"power to search premises. (1) If the Assistant Collector of Customs, or in any area adjoining the land frontier or the coast of India an officer of Customs specially empowered by name in this behalf by the Board, has reason to believe that any goods liable to confiscation, or any documents or things which in his opinion will be useful for or relevant to any proceeding under this Act, are secreted in any place, he may authorise any officer of Customs to search or may himself search for such goods, documents or things. (2) The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898), relating to searches shall, so far as may be, apply to searches under this Section subject to the modification that Sub-section (5) of Section 165 of the said Code shall have effect as if for the word "magistrate", wherever it occurs, the words "collector of Customs" were substituted. "

( 4 ) THE main ground of attack with regard to the aforesaid search and seizure is that the person responsible to order the search and seizure did not record any reasons in furtherance of his belief that any goods liable to confiscation or any documents or things which he considers might be useful for or relevant to any proceedings under the Customs Act are secreted in any place. Shri S. K. Kapoor, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners very vehemently argued and contended that it was incumbent and obligatory upon the prescribed authority in terms of Section 105 of the Customs Act not only to record the reasons in the order authorising the search operation but also to reflect such reasons in the records maintained by him for this purpose. According to Mr. Kapoor the search and seizure as conducted by the respondents, was without any authority of law since the prescribed officer failed to record any reasons for his belief in terms of Section 105 of the Act that any documents were secreted away in the premises in question and that this might have been useful or relevant for any proceedings under the Customs Act.

( 5 ) I have seen the supplementary affidavit filed by one Madan Kumar Sil who is the Assistant Director in the office of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Calcutta. According to this officer the authority prescribed to conduct search and seizure operations in terms of [section] 105 of the Customs Act had reasons to believe that searches were required to be conducted. The affidavit of Shri Madan Kumar Sil contains the following relevant information, which was made the basis of passing the order under Section 105 of the Customs Act. "m/s. Terai Overseas Ltd. , Calcutta have exported rags declared to be ladies blouses and valued at over Rs. 3 crores to Russia under claim for Drawback of Rs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document