Customs search and seizure powers: general search for relevant documents upheld, while gold-control document seizure was invalid.

Rule 126L(2) of the Defence of India (Amendment) Rules, 1963, read with Rule 156, did not authorise seizure of books or documents during a gold-control search; the later express amendment showed that no such power existed earlier, so that seizure was invalid. By contrast, Section 110(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 permitted seizure of documents relevant to customs proceedings by a proper officer, and legal possession could suffice even without immediate physical custody, so the seizure was valid. Section 105 of the Customs Act allowed a general search for relevant or secreted documents without identifying particular documents in advance, provided the officer had reason to believe they existed and were relevant; the search authorisation was therefore valid.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Rule 126L(2) of the Defence of India (Amendment) Rules, 1963 read with Rule 156 of the Defence of India Rules authorised seizure of documents during a gold-control search; (ii) Whether seizure of documents under Section 110(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 was valid when the documents were not in physical custody of the seizing officer and whether the Collector was a proper officer; (iii) Whether a search authorisation under Section 105 of the Customs Act, 1962 required identification of particular documents and an express averment that the documents were secreted.

Issue (i): Whether Rule 126L(2) of the Defence of India (Amendment) Rules, 1963 read with Rule 156 of the Defence of India Rules authorised seizure of documents during a gold-control search.

Analysis: Rule 126L(2) permitted entry, search and seizure of gold suspected to be held in contravention of the Gold Control Rules, but it did not extend to seizure of books or documents. Rule 156 conferred only ancillary or incidental powers necessary to make the authorised search and seizure effective; it did not create an independent power to seize documents. The later amendment inserting an express power to seize books of account and documents showed that such power was absent earlier in Rule 126L(2).

Conclusion: The seizure of documents under Rule 126L(2) was invalid and against the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether seizure of documents under Section 110(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 was valid when the documents were not in physical custody of the seizing officer and whether the Collector was a proper officer.

Analysis: Section 110(3) empowered the proper officer to seize documents useful for or relevant to proceedings under the Act. The Collector could be treated as a proper officer in relation to the functions involved. Physical custody was not indispensable where legal possession remained with the customs authorities and the documents were only with another officer for a limited purpose. The order of seizure operated to transfer legal possession to the Collector, and there was sufficient material to support the view that the documents were relevant to customs proceedings.

Conclusion: The seizure under Section 110(3) was valid and in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (iii): Whether a search authorisation under Section 105 of the Customs Act, 1962 required identification of particular documents and an express averment that the documents were secreted.

Analysis: The word "secreted" in Section 105 was construed contextually to include documents kept away from their normal place so as to conceal them or documents likely to be so kept. The power under Section 105 was a power of general search for documents or things useful or relevant to proceedings under the Act, and it was not necessary to specify in advance the exact documents to be searched for. The statutory preconditions, namely reason to believe and relevance to proceedings under the Act, were satisfied.

Conclusion: The search authorisation under Section 105 was valid and against the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the searches and seizures failed, and the appellants were not entitled to writ relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A power of search or seizure must be confined to the express statutory grant and cannot be enlarged by ancillary provisions unless the statute clearly authorises it; a general search under customs law is valid when the officer has reason to believe that relevant or secreted documents are present, and legal possession may suffice for seizure even without immediate physical custody.

---