Valid declaration forms protect goods from seizure absent supporting material, and mere suspicion is insufficient.

Goods covered by a valid and undisputed Form 38 could not be validly seized on mere presumption that the form may have been reused or on a bare suspicion of excess material in the vehicle. The supporting bills and declaration were not shown to be fake or invalid, and no material established prior transport of the covered goods or any defect in the documents. The driver's alleged conduct was irrelevant to detention of the goods covered by the valid declaration. Seizure of the goods to the extent covered by Form 38 was held unlawful and those goods were directed to be released without security.

---

---

Issues: Whether the seizure of goods transported against a valid Form 38 was lawful and sustainable.

Analysis: The revisionist produced the bills and Form 38, and those documents were not disputed as fake or fictitious. The seizure was justified only on a presumption that Form 38 may have been reused and on the possibility that some excess material was found in the vehicle. No material established that the goods covered by Form 38 had earlier been transported or that the documents supporting the revisionist's goods were invalid. The revisionist was not seeking release of any excess goods, and the driver's alleged conduct was irrelevant to detention of the goods covered by a valid Form 38.

Conclusion: The seizure of the goods to the extent covered by Form 38 was not legal or valid and was liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded to the extent of the goods covered by Form 38, and those goods were directed to be released without security.

Ratio Decidendi: Goods covered by a valid and undisputed declaration form cannot be validly seized on the basis of mere presumption or suspicion without supporting material.

---