TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the power of search and seizure under Rule 126L(2) of the Defence of India (Amendment) Rules, 1963, read with Rule 156, authorised seizure of books and documents along with gold, and whether the subsequent seizure of the documents under Section 110(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 was valid despite the documents not being in the physical premises of the officer at the time of seizure. (ii) Whether the authorisation for search under Section 105 of the Customs Act, 1962 was invalid for want of an express averment that the documents were secreted and for want of specification of particular documents.
Issue (i): Whether the power of search and seizure under Rule 126L(2) of the Defence of India (Amendment) Rules, 1963, read with Rule 156, authorised seizure of books and documents along with gold, and whether the subsequent seizure of the documents under Section 110(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 was valid despite the documents not being in the physical premises of the officer at the time of seizure.
Analysis: The power under Rule 126L(2) was confined to entry, search and seizure of gold and the receptacle in which it was found. Rule 156 only supplied ancillary powers necessary to secure compliance with the substantive power already granted; it did not create an independent power to seize documents. The later amendment to Rule 126L, by which a specific power to seize books and documents was inserted, showed that such power was previously absent. On the Customs Act issue, the Collector was treated as a proper officer for the purpose of Section 110(3), and seizure was not invalid merely because the papers were temporarily at Delhi with the officer who had legal custody. Legal possession could remain with the officer notwithstanding physical custody by a bailee for a limited purpose. There was also sufficient material for the Collector to form the opinion that the documents were useful or relevant to proceedings under the Customs Act.
Conclusion: The seizure of documents under Rule 126L(2) was unauthorised, but the seizure under Section 110(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 was valid; the challenge to the seizure failed.
Issue (ii): Whether the authorisation for search under Section 105 of the Customs Act, 1962 was invalid for want of an express averment that the documents were secreted and for want of specification of particular documents.
Analysis: The expression "secreted" in Section 105 was construed in a practical context to mean documents kept away from their normal place so as to conceal them, or documents likely to be so kept. The section did not require identification of any specific document in advance because the object of the provision was to enable a general search for documents or things useful or relevant to proceedings under the Act. The preliminary condition remained that the officer must have reason to believe that such documents or things were secreted in the place searched, and that condition was satisfied on the facts.
Conclusion: The search authorisation under Section 105 was valid and the challenge to it failed.
Final Conclusion: The appellants failed to establish any ground for the issue of a writ, and the appeals were dismissed with costs.
Ratio Decidendi: Ancillary powers cannot be expanded into an independent power of seizure; under Section 105 of the Customs Act, 1962, a search may validly proceed as a general search where the officer has reason to believe that relevant documents are secreted, and under Section 110(3) legal possession of documents is sufficient for seizure.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
