Court Quashes Seizure, Orders Goods Released

The court set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and quashed the seizure memo dated 6th February 2019, along with all consequential actions seizing the goods and vehicle. The court directed the authorities to release the goods forthwith, concluding that the seizure was without any legal basis. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of "reason to believe" and "liable to confiscation" under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Legitimacy of the seizure of goods based on the belief that they were imported illegally.
3. Relevance and application of various circulars and memoranda cited by the Customs authorities.
4. Judicial consistency and the applicability of previous judgments to the current case.
5. Authority and jurisdiction of Customs officers under the Customs Act and other relevant statutes.

Detailed Analysis:

Interpretation of "Reason to Believe" and "Liable to Confiscation":
The core issue addressed was the interpretation of the expressions "reason to believe" and "liable to confiscation" under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. The court noted that these terms are not defined in the Act. It emphasized that the belief of the officer seizing the goods must be based on reasonable grounds and not mere suspicion. The court cited various precedents, including Tata Chemicals Limited v. Commissioner of Customs and Assistant Collector of Customs v. Charan Das Malhotra, to underline that the officer's belief must be honest, reasonable, and based on objective material.

Legitimacy of the Seizure:
The court scrutinized the seizure of betel nuts, which were alleged to be of foreign origin and thus liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act. The goods were seized at a toll collection point within Indian territory, not at a notified customs zone. The court found no material evidence indicating that the goods had passed through or originated from outside India. The documents showed that both the consignor and consignee were within India, and the goods had traveled through Indian states. The court concluded that the seizure was based on mere suspicion and not on any concrete evidence.

Relevance and Application of Circulars and Memoranda:
The court examined several circulars and memoranda cited by the Customs authorities to justify the seizure. It found that Circular No.3 of 2011, Circular No.35 of 2017, Circular dated 20th November 2018, Circular No.30 of 2017, and Memorandum dated 4th June 2019 were either irrelevant or inapplicable to the case. The court noted that these circulars did not provide any authority to the Customs officers to act under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act or the Food Safety and Standards Act.

Judicial Consistency and Previous Judgments:
The court criticized the learned Single Judge for distinguishing the current case from a similar case (M/s Ayesha Exports v. Union of India) without maintaining judicial consistency. The court emphasized the importance of comity of judicial consistency and noted that the Single Judge had misconstrued the material on record. The court also referred to previous decisions, including Bawa Gopal Das Bedi & Sons v. Union of India, where similar proceedings were quashed.

Authority and Jurisdiction of Customs Officers:
The court reiterated that the Customs officers' authority to seize goods must be based on statutory provisions and reasonable grounds. It highlighted that the officers could not supplement their reasons for seizure through affidavits or otherwise. The court cited Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner to emphasize that public orders must be judged by the reasons mentioned in the order itself. The court also noted that if the goods were deemed "unsafe food," it was for the relevant authorities under the appropriate Act to take action, not the Customs officers under the Customs Act.

Conclusion:
The court set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and quashed the seizure memo dated 6th February 2019, along with all consequential actions seizing the goods and vehicle. The court directed the authorities to release the goods forthwith, concluding that the seizure was without any legal basis. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.

---