9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Legality of search and seizure operations under Section 105 of the Customs Act. Analysis: The judgment pertains to a case where Customs officers conducted search and seizure operations at the residential premises of the petitioners based on a search warrant issued under Section 105 of the Customs Act. The petitioners sought relief from the court, claiming the search and seizure were illegal and violated Section 105 of the Customs Act. The main contention raised was that the officer responsible for ordering the search did not record any reasons for believing that goods liable for confiscation or relevant documents were secreted at the premises. The petitioners argued that the search was conducted without lawful authority as the prescribed officer failed to document the reasons for his belief as required by Section 105 of the Act. The court considered the affidavit filed by an Assistant Director from the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, which detailed the reasons for ordering the search under Section 105 of the Customs Act. The affidavit highlighted suspicious activities related to exports by certain companies, indicating potential fraud and money laundering. The court noted that the information provided in the affidavit and accompanying documents justified the need for the search to locate relevant documents that could be useful for Customs Act proceedings. However, the court refrained from making any judgment on the sufficiency or relevance of the reasons presented, as ongoing Customs proceedings could be affected by premature comments. Ultimately, the court concluded that the requirements of Section 105 of the Customs Act were met, and there was no basis to declare the search and seizure as illegal or contrary to the Act. The petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs. No additional relief was sought or argued during the proceedings, focusing solely on the legality of the search and seizure concerning Section 105 of the Customs Act.
|
