TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Preventive seizure in border-proximate inland area u/s110 Customs Act upheld; procedural safeguards and corruption claims rejected</h1> Dominant issue: Whether preventive seizure under s.110 Customs Act in an inland area proximate to an international border was jurisdictionally valid. ... Jurisdictional validity of seizure of goods and vehicle - Reason to believe - preventive customs powers in border-proximate inland areas - deference to officer's prima facie satisfaction - judicial restraint in probing sufficiency of belief - burden of proof under Section 123 - show-cause and post-seizure procedure under Section 124 - HELD THAT:- Preventive customs powers under Section 110 extend to inland areas proximate to borders for anti-smuggling, interception at Gaighata-Thakurnagar Road activates jurisdiction, as in Tirupati Trading Corporation v. Collector of Customs [1998 (8) TMI 161 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT], where detention of prohibited goods (sandalwood) on reasonable belief of misdeclaration/concealment was upheld despite procedural claims. Sections 111(b)/(d)/121 apply pending tests, domestic trade claim rebuttable post-notice under Section 124, duly responded to despite summons. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the records this Court is of the view that the appeal lacks merit and warrants dismissal. The appeal is dismissed because “reasons to believe” under Section 110(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 requires only the officer's prima facie satisfaction based on material available at the time of seizure, without necessitating a detailed analysis or dissection of those reasons by the court. Courts assess whether a proper officer formed a reasonable belief from contemporaneous circumstances, such as the interception near the Indo-Bangladesh border and route deviation, which aroused suspicion of smuggling. Mere absence of detailed reasons in the seizure memo does not invalidate the action if prima facie grounds exist on record, as affirmed in precedents like Mohanlal [1987 (3) TMI 111 - SUPREME COURT] Allegations of corruption did not, on the material before the Court, justify interference with the Customs Act proceedings or a direction for immediate action under the Prevention of Corruption Act; available remedies were to be pursued through appropriate channels. No jurisdictional defect arises, as preventive powers extend inland near borders, distinguishing from cases of pure roving enquiry. Thus, the impugned order is upheld, and the appeal fails on merits. Issues: Whether the seizure of goods and vehicle under Section 110(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 at an inland location (Chikanpara) was invalid for want of a disclosed 'reason to believe' and for lack of jurisdictional basis.Analysis: Section 110(1) empowers preventive seizure where a proper officer forms a reasonable belief that goods are liable to confiscation; that belief is assessed from contemporaneous material and circumstances available at the time of interception. Judicial review is limited to determining whether prima facie grounds existed to support the officer's satisfaction and does not permit microscopic re-evaluation of the merits of that belief. Relevant contemporaneous factors include interception proximate to an international border, deviation from usual route, and other suspicious circumstances, together with pending test reports and statements. Absence of detailed expository reasoning in the seizure memo does not automatically invalidate preventive action if prima facie material on record supports the officer's satisfaction. Allegations of mala fides or corruption, while serious, do not compel quashing of seizure where the material circumstances justify non-interference and investigation remains ongoing; such allegations may be pursued through appropriate criminal or disciplinary fora but do not of themselves negate the existence of prima facie grounds for seizure.Conclusion: The challenge to the seizure succeeds neither on the ground of absence of 'reason to believe' nor on jurisdictional grounds; the issue is decided against the appellant and in favour of the Revenue.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
