Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2020 Supreme(All) 1096

SHASHI KANT GUPTA, PANKAJ BHATIA
Jaymatajee Enterprise (Seller) – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive) – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Shubham Agrawal
For the Respondent: Ramesh Chandra Shukla

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - (!) Seizure invalid where "reasons to believe" are not based on acceptable material and do not show goods were liable for confiscation. - (!) (!) Panchnama-based reasons (naked-eye assessment, trader opinions) insufficient to establish belief of origin/import without proper evidence. - (!) Instruction No. 01/2017 requires an explicit seizure order with reasons to believe; panchnama alone is not a valid seizure order. - (!) (!) Section 110(1) permits seizure only when goods are liable to confiscation; need lawful basis and material to support belief. - (!) Provisional release under Section 110A requires adherence to statutory framework and truthful processing; release terms can include bond and bank guarantees as prescribed. - (!) (!) Writ court held that alternative remedy of appeal is not an efficacious remedy for perishable goods and that seizure/provisional release orders violated the Act and circulars. - (!) Court directed immediate release of Areca Nuts and vehicle to petitioners. - (!) Writ petition allowed; seizure quashed.

What is required to constitute valid "reasons to believe" for seizure under Section 110 of the Customs Act?

What is the propriety and enforceability of provisional release conditions under Section 110A and related circulars/instructions?

Did the High Court properly quash the seizure and direct release of Areca Nuts and the vehicle on the grounds of non-compliance with legal prerequisites?

JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Bhatia, J.

1. The amendment application filed by the petitioners is allowed.

2. The above referred writ petition has been filed challenging the seizure of goods of petitioner no. 1 and vehicle of petitioner no. 2 vide Panchnama dated 17.8.2020 and the order of provisional release dated 1.9.2020, whereby an order has been passed releasing the goods provisionally in respect of petitioner no. 1 on the following terms and conditions:-

“(i). Execution of Bond for the value/estimated value of the seized goods i.e. Rs. 53,76,000.00;

(ii). Furnishing Bank Guarantee or Security Deposit of Rs. 13440000.00;

(iii). Statement of goods owner under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 before provisional release of the seized betel nuts & Compliance of other applicable laws (any other conditions, as prescribed by adjudicating authority).”

And in respect of petitioner no. 2 as follows:-

“i). Execution of Bond for the value/estimated value of the seized truck i.e. 700000.00;

(ii). Furnishing Bank Guarantee or Security Deposit of Rs. 70000.00;

(iii). Statement of the truck owner under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 before provisional release of the seized truck & Compliance of other app

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2020 Supreme(All) 1096

SHASHI KANT GUPTA, PANKAJ BHATIAJaymatajee Enterprise (Seller) – AppellantVersusCommissioner Of Customs (Preventive) – Respondent

What is required to constitute valid "reasons to believe" for seizure under Section 110 of the Customs Act?

What is the propriety and enforceability of provisional release conditions under Section 110A and related circulars/instructions?

Did the High Court properly quash the seizure and direct release of Areca Nuts and the vehicle on the grounds of non-compliance with legal prerequisites?

SHASHI KANT GUPTA, PANKAJ BHATIA
Jaymatajee Enterprise (Seller) – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive) – Respondent