Back
SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, MANJIVE SHUKLA
Maa Kamakhya Trader – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri. Shubham Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Dhananjay Awasthi & Sri. Gaurav Mahajan, learned counsel for the revenue.
2. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to challenge the seizure order dated 04.01.2024 (passed during pendency of the writ petition), the detention-memo dated 25.10.2023 whereby 49,210 Kgs. of Arecanuts being transported by the petitioner on two trucks bearing Registration Nos. UP-35-T-3671 and UP-71-T-9095 have been seized. The confiscation proceedings have not arisen yet.
3. Pleadings have been exchanged.
4. Besides the main Counter Affidavit and Rejoinder Affidavits filed, parties have also exchanged Supplementary Counter Affidavit & Supplementary Rejoinder Affidavit. Sri. Awasthi has filed another Supplementary Counter Affidavit in reply to the Supplementary Rejoinder Affidavit.
5. Primary submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is, under the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), seizure of goods is an action preceding confiscation of prohibited goods. Thus, goods liable to confiscation under Section 111 of the Act may be seized under Section 110 of the Act. However, before seizu
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 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 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....
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....
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.
Food safety authority's clearance via NOCs after rigorous testing binds customs authorities, precluding arbitrary re-testing, seizure of compliant imported food goods without justification.
Food safety authority's NOCs confirming imported food fit for human consumption after testing bind customs; arbitrary re-testing, seizure without overriding reasons invalid.
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
