Court sets aside Panchnama, orders return of seized goods due to inadequate seizure reasons

The Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the Panchnama dated 21.7.2020 and directing the immediate return of the seized goods to the petitioner. The Court found the basis for seizure inadequate, emphasizing that reasons under Section 110 of the Customs Act must be substantiated. The seizure was deemed arbitrary, lacking legal basis, and relying on insufficient grounds. No specific orders were issued regarding the provisional release order, with the Court instructing the official website's order copy to suffice as a certified copy for all purposes.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to Panchnama dated 21.7.2020 and order dated 31.7.2020 for provisional release of seized goods.

Analysis:
The writ petition challenged the Panchnama dated 21.7.2020 seizing goods and a vehicle, along with the order dated 31.7.2020 for provisional release of goods with specific conditions. The petitioner's counsel clarified the petition pertained to only one petitioner. The petitioner claimed to have purchased betel nuts locally for a buyer and transported them with proper documentation. However, upon entering Uttar Pradesh, authorities seized the goods and the vehicle, alleging the betel nuts were of foreign origin based on inscriptions and local dealers' opinions. The petitioner contended the seizure was arbitrary and lacked legal basis.

The counsel argued that the "reasons to believe" for seizure were unfounded, echoing arguments from a previous case. The respondents contended the petition should be dismissed due to the availability of an appeal for the provisional release order. Referring to a prior judgment, the Court emphasized that reasons to believe under Section 110 of the Customs Act must be substantiated and not merely speculative. Relying on visual inspection and local traders' opinions was deemed insufficient. Citing Instruction No. 1/2017, the Court quashed the seizure order in the previous case.

Similarly, in the present case, the Court found the Panchnama's basis for seizure inadequate, mirroring the reasoning in the previous judgment. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the Panchnama dated 21.7.2020 and directing the immediate return of the seized goods to the petitioner. As the seizure order was quashed, no specific orders were issued regarding the provisional release order. The Court instructed the official website's order copy to be considered a certified copy for all purposes.

---