Patna HC dismisses petition for release of seized edible oil under Section 110 Customs Act citing disputed facts

The Patna HC dismissed a writ petition seeking release of seized edible oil under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. The goods were in transit from Sitamarhi to Dubhi (Indo-Nepal Border). The petitioner admitted documents were produced at the customs office, indicating the driver wasn't carrying transportation documents during seizure. The court noted discrepancies between E-way Bill generation time (9:26 pm) and seizure time (9:30 pm) on 19.06.2021. The HC held that under Article 226, disputed factual issues cannot be examined, and the petitioner failed to establish grounds for relief.

---

---

Issues:
Petition for quashing of Seizure Memo dated 19.06.2021 and release of seized goods, alleged violation of Customs Act and related laws, compensation for illegal seizure, compliance with Section 110 of the Customs Act, validity of seizure based on "reasons to believe," production of relevant transportation documents, disputed issue of document production by driver, dismissal of writ petition.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought relief for quashing the Seizure Memo dated 19.06.2021 and the release of seized goods, which included edible oils and a vehicle, alleging violations of various provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, Foreign Trade Act, and CGST Act, 2017.

2. The petitioner claimed ownership of the seized goods, stating they were in transit from Sitamarhi to Dubhi when customs authorities seized them and released them provisionally under a bank guarantee pending adjudication.

3. The petitioner challenged the seizure memo, arguing that the seizing officer failed to include the crucial "reasons to believe" element as required by Section 110 of the Customs Act, citing a circular and a previous court decision to support the contention.

4. The respondent's counsel defended the seizure, asserting that the Panchnama and relevant provisions allegedly violated by the petitioner were adequately addressed in the seizure memo, referencing a specific case in support of their argument.

5. It was highlighted that during the seizure, the petitioner could not produce sufficient transportation documents, only providing a single chit, leading to the necessity of adjudication by customs authorities to determine the legitimacy of the goods' transit.

6. The court examined Section 110 of the Customs Act and a related circular, emphasizing the importance of "reasons to believe" in seizure actions, and referenced a previous case to clarify the interpretation and application of this requirement.

7. The court noted the necessity for cited legal provisions in seizure actions and emphasized that the provision of the violated law is sufficient to fulfill the "reasons to believe" requirement.

8. A co-ordinate Bench decision was cited to illustrate the clarity required in specifying reasons for seizure, emphasizing the importance of compliance with legal provisions in such actions.

9. The petitioner contended that they had submitted valid transportation documents to the customs department, while the respondent disputed this claim, citing the lack of relevant documents at the time of seizure.

10. Discrepancies arose regarding the production of documents by the driver at the time of seizure, leading to conflicting assertions between the parties, with the court unable to resolve disputed factual issues in a writ petition.

11. The court highlighted the importance of factual clarity and the inability to resolve disputed issues in a writ petition, particularly concerning the production of relevant documents during the seizure.

12. Considering the facts and circumstances, the court concluded that the petitioner failed to establish a case, resulting in the dismissal of the writ petition.

13. Despite the dismissal, the petitioner was directed to cooperate with customs authorities in the pending adjudication process, while authorities were instructed to expedite the matter within a reasonable timeframe of six months.

---