1983 (8) TMI 57 - HC - Customs

Search Words and phrases Writ jurisdiction Searches and seizures Interference by Courts

Issues:

I. Supply of the opinion formed by the Director for search and seizure.
II. Validity of the opinion formed by the Director to conduct the search.
III. Excesses in the searches and seizures by authorized officers.
IV. Search and seizure of documents on 10th and 15th June 1983.
V. Return of documents and articles seized if the search and seizure were valid.
VI. Validity of the notice dated 16-6-1983 issued by the Director.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

I. Supply of the opinion formed by the Director for search and seizure:

The petitioner argued that they were entitled to a copy of the opinion formed by the Director under Section 105 of the Customs Act and Section 165 of the Cr. P.C., and its non-supply vitiated the searches and seizures. The Court held that the words "so far as may be" in Section 105(2) of the Customs Act mean that the provisions of the Cr. P.C. should be applied to the extent they can be made applicable, excluding the necessity to supply the opinion. The Court rejected the petitioner's contention, noting that absolute secrecy is essential for effective searches under taxation and anti-social measures.

II. Validity of the opinion formed by the Director to conduct the search:

The petitioner contended that the Director's opinion was based on no material or irrelevant material, making it illegal and invalid. The Court examined the Director's original file and found that the opinion was based on relevant material and was honest and definite, satisfying Section 105 of the Customs Act. The Court upheld the Director's decision, stating it could not be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution.

III. Excesses in the searches and seizures by authorized officers:

The petitioner alleged that the searches and seizures were excessive and vexatious. The Court noted that the proceedings were still to be completed by the authorities and that the mere number of documents seized did not indicate excesses. The Court found no merit in the contention and rejected it.

IV. Search and seizure of documents on 10th and 15th June 1983:

The petitioner argued that there were searches and seizures on 10th and 15th June 1983, and the documents seized on those days should be returned. The respondents claimed the documents were voluntarily delivered. The Court found the petitioner's version more probable, given the tense atmosphere and ongoing searches. The Court held that the seizure of documents on those days was illegal and ordered their return. Even if the documents were voluntarily delivered, the petitioner was entitled to their return.

V. Return of documents and articles seized if the search and seizure were valid:

The petitioner sought the return of account books, protocols, VCRs, and testing machines, even if the searches and seizures were valid. The Court directed the return of 67 account books, 4200 protocols (retaining only 200), and 10 Video Testing machines, subject to conditions ensuring the interests of revenue and legal proceedings. The Court emphasized the need to avoid paralyzing the company's operations unnecessarily.

VI. Validity of the notice dated 16-6-1983 issued by the Director:

The petitioner challenged the validity of the notice issued by the Director under Section 14 of the Act. The Court found the notice within the Director's power and for the purpose of the Act. The Court upheld the notice's validity and did not interfere with it.

Orders and Directions:

1. Quashed the decision dated 16-6-1983 to search M.G. Road godown and directed the return of 102 VCRs within 7 days.
2. Directed the return of documents delivered on 10th and 15th June 1983 within 7 days.
3. Dismissed the writ petition in all other respects.
4. Directed the petitioner to deliver sealed boxes of documents to respondent No. 1 within 3 days.
5. Directed the return of 10 Video Testing machines on furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs. 1,60,000/- and other conditions.
6. Directed the return of 67 account books on the petitioner's undertaking to produce them when required.
7. Directed the return of protocols, retaining only 200, on the petitioner's undertaking to produce them when required.
8. Directed the parties to bear their own costs.

The Court emphasized the need for the authorities to complete the proceedings expediently and return unnecessary documents to the petitioner.

← Previous Next →