9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 1134X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d their contention of such power being vested with the Customs Officers citing any authority on such proposition. As to how Section 105 of the Customs Act has been considered and interpreted by the Supreme Court in upholding its validity can be seen from the observations of the Supreme Court in R. S. Seth Gopikisan Agarwal Vs. R. N. Sen, Assistant Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Raipur Ors. [ 1967 (1) TMI 39 - SUPREME COURT ]. The Supreme Court interpreting Section 105 of the Customs Act, observed that the object of the section is to make search for the goods liable to be confiscated or the documents secreted in any place which are relevant to any proceeding under the Act. It was observed that the legislative policy reflec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is certainly not permissible under the provisions of Section 105 of the Customs Act - the petitioner has shown willingness to co-operate in the search action to be undertaken by the customs authorities. The customs authorities need to unseal the office premises of the petitioner in the presence of the representatives of the petitioner, so that the customs authorities can undertake search of the office premises in regard to the relevant material only - Petition disposed off. - G. S. KULKARNI JITENDRA JAIN, JJ. For the Petitioner : Dr. Sujay Kantawala, Mr. Anupam Dighe, Ms. Chandni Tanna and Mr. Prathamesh Chavan i/b. India Law Alliance. For the Respondents : Mr. Vijay Kantharia with Mr. Ram Ochani. ORAL JUDGMENT: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ansactions concerning S. T. Electricals. He submits that in so far as the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner has not directly purchased goods from S. T. Electricals. Dr. Kantawala would also submit that the petitioner would not have any grievance if the concerned officers of the respondents take search of the office premises and confine their search, to the documents, in regard to the trail of transactions of the goods, which S.T. Electricals has sold. It is his submission that S. T. Electricals has supplied the goods to Pacific who sold the goods to M/s. Mayur Enterprises from whom the petitioner had purchased the goods. It is hence his submission that the respondents need to confine their search in regard to investigation in question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the goods liable to be confiscated or the documents secreted in any place which are relevant to any proceeding under the Act. It was observed that the legislative policy reflected in the section is that the search must be in regard to the two categories mentioned therein, namely, goods liable to be confiscated and documents relevant to the proceedings under the Act. The observations of the Supreme Court in such context are required to be noted which read thus:- 10. Then it is contended that S. 105 of the Act confers an unguided and arbitrary power on the Assistant Collector of Customs to make a search, the only condition being that he has reason to believe in the existence of the facts mentioned therein. It is said that the said bel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... res any person to be searched for goods liable to confiscation or any document relating thereto, without having reason to believe that he has such goods or documents secreted about this person; or (b) arrests any person without having reason to believe that he has been guilty of an offence punishable under Section 135; or (c) searches or authorises any other officer of customs to search any place without having reason to believe that any goods, documents or things of the nature referred to in Section 105 are secreted in that place, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. No doubt he can be prosecuted only with th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... our opinion, it is for such reasons in providing for powers under Section 105 of the Customs Act of search, the legislature has kept out and/or has not included within its purview a power to seal, and has confined the power only to search the premises. 9. In so far as the facts of the case are concerned, it does not appear that the premises of the petitioner were not available for the purpose of search and it appears that the customs authorities had straightaway resorted to take a drastic action against the petitioner to seal the premises for the purpose of searching the premises. This is certainly not permissible under the provisions of Section 105 of the Customs Act. 10. Be that as it may, in the present case, the petitioner has sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
