Court upholds search & seizure under Customs Act, emphasizing officer's satisfaction & limited court role.

The court upheld the search and seizure conducted under Section 105 of the Customs Act, 1962, finding that the authorizing officer had recorded satisfaction for invoking powers. The court emphasized the need for the officer to satisfy about the regularity of their actions and highlighted the limited role of the court in examining subjective satisfaction. It was concluded that the authority had sufficient material to form a reason to believe, and the authorization was not issued arbitrarily. Consequently, the petition challenging the search and seizure was dismissed.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to search and seizure under Section 105 of the Customs Act, 1962 based on lack of satisfaction for invoking powers, reliance on previous court orders, sufficiency of reason to believe for search authorization.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged a search and seizure conducted under Section 105 of the Customs Act, 1962, at its factory premises, claiming the authorizing officer did not record satisfaction for invoking powers. The petitioner argued that the search lacked jurisdiction as there was no "reason to believe" for the search authorization. The respondents produced relevant records showing the satisfaction of conditions precedent for the search authorization, based on seizures of non-duty paid cigarettes. The court found sufficient reason to believe for issuing the authorization under Section 105(1) of the Customs Act.

The petitioner's reliance on previous court orders was considered misconceived as the present case had relevant records to support the authorization for the search. The court noted that the authorization was duly issued after recording satisfaction as required by the Customs Act. Reference was made to a recent case dealing with a similar provision under the Income Tax Act, emphasizing the need for the officer to satisfy the court about the regularity of their actions.

The court discussed the scope of writ jurisdiction in cases challenging authorizations under the Income Tax Act, highlighting the limited role of the court in examining the subjective satisfaction of the authority. Various judgments were cited to emphasize that the court cannot substitute its opinion for that of the authority issuing the authorization. The court reiterated that the reason to believe must be based on definable material, and interference by the court is limited to examining arbitrariness or lack of application of mind by the authority.

Ultimately, the court found that the authority issuing the search warrant had enough material to form a reason to believe that goods liable for confiscation were secreted, and the authorization was not issued without due consideration. Therefore, the court concluded that no case was made out to interfere in the matter at the stage of seizure, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

---