TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 1161
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itor General Mr.Anshuman Singh, Sr. S.C. Customs Mr.Devansh Shankar Singh, AC to ASG Mr.Abhijeet Gautam , AC to ASG JUDGMENT ( Per : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI ) In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs : "a) Quashing/Setting aside of Seizure Memo dated 19.06.2021 seized by the Superintendent of Land Customs Station, Jaynagar in connection with Unit Case No. 25/21-22 (Annexure-05) whereby i. 150 Tins of "Naga Ji" Blended Edible Vegetable Oil weighing 15 liters in each tin. ii. 10 cartons containing 4 jars of "Naga Ji" Blended Vegetable Edible Oil weighing 5 litres each. iii. 30 cartons containing 4 jars of "Do Phool" Blended Vegetable Edible Oil weighing 5 litres each. iv. 30 c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction of the customs department on the ground that under section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 the words incorporated in the aforementioned section is "reasons to believe". This has not been incorporated in the seizure memo by the seizing officer. In support of the aforesaid contention, petitioner has relied upon circular dated 08.02.2017 (Annexure-7). In para-4 thereof, three ingredients were required to be fulfilled by the seizing authority namely, Panchnama, clearly mentioning the "reasons to believe" that goods are liable for confiscation. The other clause is not relevant for the present case. In support of the aforementioned contention, he has relied on the co-ordinate Bench decision in the case of Om Sai Tranding Company & Anr. Vs. Uni....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er things. 6. Heard learned counsels for the respective parties. Before adverting to the subject matter, it is necessary to reproduce Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 and clause 4 of the circular dated 08.02.2017. They are reproduced as under : Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 "110. Seizure of goods, documents and things. (1) If the proper officer has reason to believe that any goods are liable to confiscation under this Act, he may seize such goods:Provided that where it is not practicable to seize any such goods, the proper officer may serve on the owner of the goods an order that he shall not remove, part with, or otherwise deal with the goods except with the previous permission of such officer. [(1-A) The Central Gov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....application.] [ Inserted by Act 80 of 1985, Section 8 (w.e.f. 27.12.1985).] (2)Where any goods are seized under sub-section (1) and no notice in respect thereof is given under clause (a) of section 124 within six months of the seizure of the goods, the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized:[Provided that the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend such period to a further period not exceeding six months and inform the person from whom such goods were seized before the expiry of the period so specified:Provided further that where any order for provisional release of the seized goods has been passed under section 110A, the specifi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r, having regard to the facts of the case interpretation of "reasons to believe" has not been examined and it was left over to be examined in some other cases. Para-4 of the circular dated 08.02.2017 stipulated that at the time of seizure Panchnama was required to be drawn clearly mentioning the reasons to believe that goods are liable for confiscation. 8. The co-ordinate Bench in M.A. No. 528 of 2022 (The Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Patna Vs. Sh. Rajendra Sethiya) in Para-13, it is held as under : "13. With this bare and simple admitted facts, we first look at the valuation carried out by the Department on interception and detection of goods, which is at page 73 of the appeal memorandum. The valuation was done by a government r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itted that he had produced documents in the office of the customs department, therefore, the transportation of seized goods were genuine and there was no occasion for the customs department to seize the goods. The aforementioned contention is disputed by the official respondents to the extent that at the time of seizure of goods at 21.00 hrs on 19.06.2021 the driver of the vehicle was not carrying the relevant documents like invoice and other ancillary related papers, he was carrying only one chit which has been placed on record at Annexure- R/1. 11. There is disputed issue as to whether driver of the vehicle had produced relevant documents at 21.00 hrs. on 19.06.2021 or not. In fact, at para 13 of the writ petition, petitioner has admitte....