Customs search authorization upheld where statutory basis was substantially disclosed and Article 14 challenge failed.

A search authorization under the Customs Act was held valid where it substantially conveyed the statutory basis of "reason to believe" without reproducing those exact words or setting out detailed reasons. The statute did not require the Assistant Collector to record or communicate elaborate reasons, and a broad indication of the goods and documents sought was sufficient. Objections based on Criminal Procedure Code search requirements were rejected because the Customs Act operated in a different field. The definition of "proper officer" permitted assignment of functions by the Board or Collector, and the challenge to Section 105 under Article 14 failed because the provision disclosed legislative policy and contained safeguards against misuse.

---

---

Issues: Whether the search and seizure under the Customs Act was invalid for want of an express recital of reason to believe, for non-compliance with the Criminal Procedure Code search provisions, for lack of authority in the officer issuing the authorization, and whether the provision conferring search power was unconstitutional under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The authorization issued for search, though not employing the exact words "reason to believe", substantially conveyed the statutory requirement and was sufficient. The Customs Act did not require the Assistant Collector to record or communicate detailed reasons in the authorization, and the absence of such reasons did not vitiate the search power. The statute required only a broad indication of the nature of the goods and documents sought, which was present in the authorization. The contention based on the Criminal Procedure Code was rejected because the search provision under the Customs Act operated in a different field and the requirements of Section 165(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 were not attracted in the manner suggested. The expression defining "proper officer" permitted assignment of functions by both the Board and the Collector of Customs. The challenge to the validity of Section 105 on the ground of unguided discretion also failed because the provision disclosed a legislative policy and contained safeguards, including penal consequences for misuse and supervisory control. The High Court's finding that the search was founded on reasonable belief was also upheld.

Conclusion: The search and seizure were valid, the statutory challenge failed, and the constitutional challenge under Article 14 was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A search authorization under Section 105 of the Customs Act is not invalid merely because it does not reproduce the words "reason to believe" or record detailed reasons, provided the statutory basis is substantially disclosed and the power is exercised within the safeguards built into the Act.

---