Customs search authorisation requires objective material; bare satisfaction is insufficient and seizure proceedings were invalid.

The power to authorise search under Section 105 of the Customs Act, 1962 depends on the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner having objective reasons to believe, based on material on record, that goods liable to confiscation or relevant documents are secreted in a place. A bare recital that the officer was satisfied is not enough unless the record shows the material forming that belief. Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 governs the burden of proof after seizure and does not remove the statutory requirement for prior authorisation. As no material or report was shown to have been placed before the authorising officer, the initiation of the search and seizure proceedings was held invalid.

---

---

Issues: Whether the initiation of search and seizure proceedings was valid in the absence of material on record showing the requisite reason to believe under the governing customs law.

Analysis: The search power under Section 105 of the Customs Act, 1962 is conditioned on the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner having reasons to believe, based on objective material, that goods liable to confiscation or relevant documents are secreted in a place. A mere recital that the officer was satisfied is insufficient unless the record discloses the material that formed the basis of that satisfaction. Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 concerns the burden of proof after seizure and does not dispense with the statutory precondition for authorising a search. On the record produced, no material or report was shown to have been placed before the authorising officer.

Conclusion: The initiation of the search and seizure proceedings was invalid and the challenge by the assessee succeeded.

---