https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41346 A search authorization under the Customs Act was held valid where it substantially conveyed the statutory basis of "reason to believe" without reproducing those exact words or setting out detailed reasons. The statute did not require the Assistant Collector to record or communicate elaborate reasons, and a broad indication of the goods and documents sought was sufficient. Objections based on Criminal Procedure Code search requirements were rejected because the Customs Act operated in a different field. The definition of "proper officer" permitted assignment of functions by the Board or Collector, and the challenge to Section 105 under Article 14 failed because the provision disclosed legislative policy and contained safeguards against misuse. en-us Thu, 05 Jan 1967 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Aug 2014 14:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41346 A search authorization under the Customs Act was held valid where it substantially conveyed the statutory basis of "reason to believe" without reproducing those exact words or setting out detailed reasons. The statute did not require the Assistant Collector to record or communicate elaborate reasons, and a broad indication of the goods and documents sought was sufficient. Objections based on Criminal Procedure Code search requirements were rejected because the Customs Act operated in a different field. The definition of "proper officer" permitted assignment of functions by the Board or Collector, and the challenge to Section 105 under Article 14 failed because the provision disclosed legislative policy and contained safeguards against misuse. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 05 Jan 1967 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41346