9911796707
TMI BlogCustoms Seizure and the Doctrine of "Reasons to Believe": Clarity or AmbiguityX X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffice 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 requirem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
