TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 1003
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Nirvikar, Sr. Advocate Mr. Ranjay Kumar, Advocate Mr. Satya Prakash Tripathy, Sr. SC. CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) The petitioners in the above writ application are aggrieved with the seizure of goods and the adjudication order passed, bearing No. 64-Cus/JC/Denovo/FBG/2014 dated 13.03.2015, produced at Annexure-11. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the reason for seizure or detention was not the ground on which the adjudication proceedings were initiated; which vitiates the seizure. Section 100 of the Customs Act, 1962 requires 'reasons to believe' for making seizure of goods. In the present case, the seizure was made purportedly for violation of provisions of Notification No. 9/96 (N.T)-Cus ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l available to the petitioners, which the petitioners have not chosen to avail. It is also submitted that as per the export policy, sugar can be exported by a merchant, importer/exporter only after obtaining an export release order from Chief Director (Sugar) i.e. through export licensing. 5. The seizure receipt, as produced at Annexure P/1, in the column for 'reasons for seizure or detention' indicates violation of provisions of Notification No. 9/96 (NT) Cus. dated 22.01.1996. The said notification relates to the following:- "Goods which have been exported to Nepal from countries other than India except machinery and equipment used in Nepal for the execution of a project may be allowed to be imported into India from Nepal after complet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... belief that the conditions are satisfied does not exist or is not material or relevant to the belief required by the section. The Court can always examine this aspect though the declaration or sufficiency of the reasons for the belief cannot be investigated by the Court." (Underlining by us for emphasis) 8. The 'reason to believe' hence is the foundational aspect which enables seizure and initiation of an adjudication proceeding. In the present case we have seen that the 'reason to believe' is illegal import while the adjudication has proceeded on the allegation of illegal export. Even the counter affidavit speaks of export of sugar having been regulated by licence. We find the foundational aspect to be absent in the above proceedings....