1986 (7) TMI 115 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Seizure of gold biscuits exceeding permissible limit during customs check.
2. Dispute over the seizure and statements signed by the petitioner.
3. Arrest and pending proceedings in court for economic offenses.
4. Impounding and retention of passport by customs authorities.
5. Interpretation of the term "document" under section 110(3) of the Customs Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The petitioner landed at Trivandrum Airport with various goods, including gold biscuits exceeding the permissible limit. Customs authorities seized the gold biscuits with a probable market value of Rs. 4,32,216. The petitioner disputed the seizure and statements signed, alleging coercion and pressure.

2. The petitioner's arrest and production before the court for economic offenses are not disputed. The petitioner sought the release of his passport, which was impounded by customs authorities. The petitioner's requests for release were denied, leading him to approach the High Court for relief.

3. The customs authorities claimed power to retain the passport under section 110(3) of the Customs Act, which allows seizure of documents relevant to proceedings under the Act. The petitioner's counsel contended that a passport does not fall under the definition of a "document" as per the Act, raising a significant legal issue for the court to determine.

4. The court delved into the interpretation of the term "document" in various statutory contexts, emphasizing the importance of context in defining the term. The court examined the nature of a passport, highlighting its role as a repository of personal information and a means of establishing identity and nationality, citing previous legal discussions on the subject.

5. Referring to past judgments and legal definitions, the court concluded that a passport qualifies as a "document" under section 110(3) of the Customs Act. The court dismissed the petitioner's contention, ruling that the passport's retention by customs authorities was justified. Consequently, the original petition was dismissed with costs imposed on the petitioner.