9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Impugned search and seizure under Customs Act, 1962. Validity of the search and seizure based on "reason to believe" grounds. Jurisdiction of the respondent-authorities to retain seized money. Interpretation of sections 105, 110, 121, and 123 of the Customs Act, 1962. Analysis: The petitioner challenged the search and seizure conducted by respondent No. 3 at his residence on behalf of respondent No. 2 under the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner contended that the search was not in accordance with the provisions of sections 105 and 110 of the Act, which allow officers to search for and seize goods, documents, or things based on a "reason to believe" that they are relevant to any proceedings under the Act. The respondents justified their actions based on intelligence suggesting involvement in importing raw materials against Advance Licences and selling them in contravention of customs regulations. The respondents specifically targeted firms like M/s. Cee International, O.S. Textile, and M/s. Krishna Woollen Mills, alleging fraudulent activities and bogus operations. The court examined the materials presented by the respondents and found that they only raised suspicions against the petitioner without concrete evidence of any wrongdoing. The court emphasized that mere suspicion is insufficient grounds for search or seizure under the Customs Act. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Sheo Nath Singh v. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, the court reiterated that a "reason to believe" must be based on honest and reasonable grounds, not mere speculation or hearsay. The court highlighted the absence of any record linking the petitioner or his firm to illegal activities, noting that an Advance Licence issued in favor of M/s. Krishna Woollen Mills was voluntarily surrendered. Regarding the jurisdiction of the respondent-authorities to retain the seized money, the court rejected the argument that the money could be confiscated as proceeds from smuggled goods. The court pointed out that there was no evidence linking the money to any illicit activities or smuggled goods. Consequently, the court ordered the authorities to return the seized amount to the petitioner immediately. However, the court clarified that this decision did not prevent the authorities from conducting a lawful investigation into the matter in the future. No costs were awarded in the judgment. In conclusion, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh, ruled in favor of the petitioner, declaring the search and seizure as conducted by the respondent-authorities to be without jurisdiction. The court directed the authorities to return the seized money to the petitioner while allowing them to pursue further investigations lawfully. The judgment underscores the importance of concrete evidence and legal grounds for search and seizure actions under the Customs Act, emphasizing the need for a "reason to believe" based on reasonable grounds rather than mere suspicion.
|
