Customs Seizure and the Doctrine of "Reasons to Believe": Clarity or Ambiguity

Submit your Comments

Contents
Plus+

Deciphering Legal Judgments: A Comprehensive Analysis of Judgment of High Court on "the "Reasons to Believe" Requirement in Customs Seizures "

Reported as:

2024 (8) TMI 1161 - PATNA HIGH COURT

INTRODUCTION

This article analyzes a recent court judgment that examined the interpretation and application of the "reasons to believe" requirement u/s 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, concerning the seizure of goods by customs authorities. The case involved the seizure of edible oil consignments being transported from Sitamarhi to the Indo-Nepal border, where the petitioner challenged the legality of the seizure on the grounds that the seizing officer failed to mention the "reasons to believe" that the goods were liable for confiscation.

The core legal question presented in this case was whether the mere citation of the relevant provisions of the Customs Act, allegedly violated, would suffice as "reasons to believe" for the seizure, or whether a more detailed explanation was required.

ARGUMENTS PRESENTED

Petitioner's Contentions:

The petitioner, the owner of the seized goods, argued that Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, requires the seizing officer to mention the "reasons to believe" that the goods are liable for confiscation in the seizure memo.
The petitioner relied on a circular dated 08.02.2017, which stipulated that the seizure panchnama (record) should clearly mention the "reasons to believe" that the goods are liable for confiscation.
The petitioner further contended that they had valid documents for the transportation of the seized goods, which were produced before the customs authorities.

Respondent's Arguments:

The respondent (customs authorities) argued that merely quoting the relevant provisions of the Customs Act allegedly violated by the petitioner was sufficient to fulfill the "reasons to believe" requirement.
The respondent claimed that the petitioner could not produce relevant documents at the time of seizure, and only a chit was furnished, raising suspicions about the legitimacy of the transportation.
The respondent further argued that the discrepancies in the e-way bill generation time and the seizure time also raised doubts about the genuineness of the transportation.

Both parties relied on legal precedents and judicial interpretations to support their respective positions.

COURT DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS

The court examined the interpretation of the "reasons to believe" requirement u/s 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, in light of its previous decision in the case of M/S Om Sai Trading Company and M/S Maa Kamakhya Traders v. Union of India & Ors. [2019 (9) TMI 1283 - Patna High Court]. The court noted that while the matter was litigated before the Supreme Court, the interpretation of "reasons to believe" was left open for examination in other cases.

The court also considered the circular dated 08.02.2017, which required the seizure panchnama to clearly mention the "reasons to believe" that the goods were liable for confiscation.

The court further discussed the decision in The Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Patna v. Sh. Rajendra Sethiya [2024 (3) TMI 1194 - PATNA HIGH COURT], where it was held that merely citing the provisions of law allegedly violated would suffice as "reasons to believe" for the seizure.

The court acknowledged the disputed issue regarding whether the driver of the vehicle had produced relevant documents at the time of seizure or not. The petitioner admitted in the writ petition that documents were produced in the customs department's office, implying that the driver was not carrying the necessary documents during the seizure.

The court also noted the discrepancy between the e-way bill generation time and the seizure time, raising further doubts about the legitimacy of the transportation.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION

The court concluded that the petitioner had not made out a case for quashing the seizure memo or directing the release of the seized goods. The court dismissed the writ petition based on the following reasoning:

The court could not examine disputed issues of fact, such as whether the driver had produced relevant documents at the time of seizure, under Article 226 (writ jurisdiction).
The discrepancy between the e-way bill generation time and the seizure time raised doubts about the genuineness of the transportation.
The petitioner admitted to producing documents in the customs department's office, implying that the driver was not carrying the necessary documents during the seizure.

However, the court directed the petitioner to cooperate with the customs authorities in the pending adjudication proceedings and instructed the authorities to provide ample opportunity to the petitioner and expedite the matter within a reasonable period of six months.

DOCTRINAL ANALYSIS

The judgment highlights the ongoing debate and evolving jurisprudence surrounding the interpretation of the "reasons to believe" requirement u/s 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. The court acknowledged the divergent views on whether merely citing the provisions of law allegedly violated would suffice as "reasons to believe" or whether a more detailed explanation is required.

The court's decision in this case did not directly resolve the doctrinal issue but relied on the specific facts and circumstances of the case, including the disputed factual issues and the discrepancies in the documentation provided by the petitioner.

The judgment reinforces the principle that courts cannot examine disputed questions of fact under writ jurisdiction and must rely on the adjudicatory process before the concerned authorities. However, it also emphasizes the need for customs authorities to provide ample opportunity and expedite the adjudication process within a reasonable time frame.

The evolving interpretation of the "reasons to believe" requirement will likely continue to be shaped by future judicial pronouncements, as the courts grapple with balancing the need for procedural safeguards against the exigencies of effective customs enforcement.

Full Text:

2024 (8) TMI 1161 - PATNA HIGH COURT