9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (9) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffice at Bikaner in the State of Rajasthan and its Branch Offices are situated throughout the country, including the States of Assam and Bihar. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are engaged in the business of Central Merchant and Commission Agent in the State of Assam. They claim to have whole-sale licences under the Assam General Sales Tax Act and the Rules framed thereunder for dealing in betel-but (Supari) and other items. Out of the seized 220 bags of betel-nut, 120 bags of betel-nut is claimed by petitioner No. 2, whereas, 100 bags is claimed by petitioner No 2. It is asserted on their behalf that they have procured betel-nut from the local markets in the State of Assam through various Market Committees. Petitioner No. 2 sold the aforesaid quantity of betel-nut to M/s. Vikash Trading Company, Piterkunda, Varanasi and petitioner No. 3 sold the aforesaid quantity of betel-nut to M/s. Pansum Traders. Varanasi. It is also stated that the purchasers are also registered dealers in Supari and they have valid documents, including registration certificate obtained from the authorities of the State where they are carrying business. 3.It is stated that petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 sent their consignm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ip. Thereafter, in present of two witnesses, the truck was searched, on which betel-nut was found to be loaded. Thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner, Customs, Motihari, was contacted on telephone and as per his suitable direction, the truck was brought to the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Customs, Motihari, along with two witnesses with the help of a hired driver. In presence of the two witnesses under the supervision of the Assistant Commissioner, Customs, Motihari and the Superintendent, Customs (P) Circle, Gopalganj, the truck was searched thoroughly at the Customs Office, Motihari and 220 bags of betel-nut were found. Small quantities of betel-nut were chosen at random from different bags in presence of the witnesses. The authorities obtained market opinions from two different experienced dealers of the betel-nut known for their expertise for the confirmation of the foreign origin goods and they confirmed that the betel-nuts were of foreign (country) origin. Then, after completing all the formalities, the seizure of 220 bags of betel-nut was effected under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short 'the Act') for violation of Section 11 of the Act and a panchnama ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on No. 9/96, dated 22-1-1996, whereby the import from Nepal to India of goods which have been exported to Nepal from the countries, other than India, has been prohibited. The credible information, prima facie shows that the betel-nut was of a third country origin and a final decision has to be taken in terms of the provisions of the Act. 9.The Act has been enacted to check the menace of the smuggling of goods. According to Section 110 of the Act, the proper officer has been empowered to seize the goods if he has reasonable belief that the goods are liable to confiscation under the provisions of the Act. Under the provisions of the Act, the Customs authority is empowered to collect information with regard to contravention of the provisions of the Act, concealment of the smuggled goods, avoidance of duty of excise so that the proceedings for confiscation, etc. may be initiated under the Act. Section 108 of the Act empowered the officer concerned to summon any person to give evidence. When the Customs authority under the Act collects information or evidence regarding proof of contravention, etc. then he takes step for confiscation of the goods under Section 111 or 113 of the Act and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to believe or reasonable belief' in the case of Pukhraj v. D.R. Kohli, reported in 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1360 (SC) = A.I.R. 1962 SC 1559. There, the provisions of Section 178A of the Sea Customs Act 1878 were under consideration, which provided that once it is shown that the goods were seized in contravention of the Sea Customs Act under the reasonable belief that they are smuggled goods, then the burden of proof is on the person from whose possession such goods are seized. It appears that the appellant before the apex Court was a goldsmith and while he was travelling by a train on 25-10-1956 he was searched at Raigarh Railway Station and found to be in possession of five pieces of gold bullion weighing 290.6 tolas. The same was seized by the officer concerned and, thereafter, steps were taken under the provisions of the Act and an order of confiscation was passed, which was challenged before the apex Court. One of the points raised in that case was that there was nothing on the record to show that the seizure of the gold was effected by the officer acting on a reasonable belief that the seized gold was a smuggled one. The apex Court held that while dealing with the question whether th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mith, it was made of pure gold, held that the said fact was sufficient even for a layman to entertain the belief that it was smuggled gold. 14.At this stage, I would like to refer to a Division Bench judgment of this Court, which was relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, in the case of Angou Golmei v. Vizovolie Chakhasang, reported in 1996 (81) E.L.T. 440 (Patna). In the said case, their Lordships have relied upon the aforesaid judgments of the apex Court and considering the meaning of the 'reasonable belief' and after taking into consideration the facts of that case, they came to the conclusion that the materials in that case were not sufficient to form a reasonable belief that the goods were liable to confiscation under the Act. 15.The meaning of the word 'reasonable belief' is well-settled. The question as to whether in a particular case, the grounds are sufficient to form a reasonable belief that the goods are smuggled ones or not, depends upon the facts of each case and as such decision in another case having different set of facts that the grounds are not sufficient to form at reasonable belief that the goods are smuggled goods, cannot be a binding prec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is for the authorities to consider in the light of the materials produced before them in terms of the provisions of the Act. The seizure of the articles and the truck has been made and the authorities have to proceed under the provisions of the Act and as such at this stage, any observation with regard to the merit of the case will prejudice either party and as such it is not proper to express any opinion about the merit of the case. Intervention at the initial stage of confiscation and seizure has been depricated by the apex Court. In this case, reference may be had of a decision of the apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Lexus Exports Pvt. Ltd., reported in 1994 (71) E.L.T. 348 (S.C.) = (1997) 10 S.C.C. 232. 18.In that case after seizure of the goods, the same was challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court and further proceeding before the authorities were stayed and a direction was issued for the release of the seized goods. The Revenue approached the Division Bench and the Division Bench directed the persons concerned to export the goods during the pendency of the statutory adjudication. The apex Court held that the High Court should not ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
