9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 683X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . - Letters Patent Appeal No.131 of 2012 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12197 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 6-3-2014 - MR. ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH J. For the Appellants: Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, Sr. Standing counsel Mrs. Archana Sahi, Advocate Mr. Vikash Kumar Pankaj, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, Advocate ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is preferred by the respondent-Union of India against the order dated 14th November 2011 made by the learned single Judge in CWJC No.12197 of 2011. The matter at dispute is the seizure of consignment of betel nuts transported by the petitioner through the territory of Bihar. The said consignment whil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The learned single Judge has taken into consideration the events subsequent to the seizure. The learned single Judge has noted that the customs authorities could not prove that the consignment seized was that of the third country origin. Consequently, the learned single Judge has set aside the order of seizure and directed the appellants to release the seized consignment and the vehicle. Therefore, this Appeal. We have heard the learned advocates extensively. Learned advocate Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar has appeared for the appellants. She has relied upon the judgments of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the matters of Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, West Bengal v. Dunlop India Ltd. and others, [AIR 1985 SC 330]; of State ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng heard the learned advocates and having perused the records we are unable to hold that betel nuts being not prohibited goods are not liable to confiscation. In the case before us, the Customs officer did have reason to believe that the transporter of the consignment in question was trying to avoid the Customs authorities. In the circumstances, the seizure could not have been set aside. The events subsequent to the seizure are not relevant for the purpose of examining whether the seizure was proper or not. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow this Appeal. Impugned order dated 14th November 2011 made by the learned single Judge in CWJC No.12197 of 2011 is set aside. CWJC No.12197 of 2011 is dismissed. Adjudication process will be compl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
