Prior reasonable belief is essential for search and confiscation under customs law; mere suspicion cannot sustain seizure.

Search, seizure and confiscation of currency require a prior reasonable belief, based on material, that goods liable to confiscation are secreted and that the statutory power is properly invoked. Mere suspicion that the currency represented proceeds of smuggled goods was insufficient. In the absence of acceptable proof that such belief existed before the search, the exercise of power lacked its essential foundation and was arbitrary. The confiscation order could not therefore be sustained under the Customs Act or in writ jurisdiction, and the challenge succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the search, seizure and consequent confiscation of the currency were valid in the absence of prior reasonable belief and statutory foundation.

Analysis: The currency was seized on the basis of suspicion that it represented the proceeds of smuggled goods. The governing provisions required a prior reasonable belief, founded on material, that goods liable to confiscation were secreted and that the search power was properly invoked. In the absence of acceptable proof that such belief existed before the search and seizure, the exercise of power was treated as lacking its essential foundation and as an arbitrary exercise. The confiscation order therefore could not be sustained under the Customs Act or in writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The search, seizure and confiscation were held invalid and the writ petition was allowed in favour of the petitioner.

---