Customs Seizure and the Doctrine of "Reasons to Believe": Clarity or Ambiguity

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... where the petitioner challenged the legality of the seizure on the grounds that the seizing officer failed to mention the "reasons to believe" that the goods were liable for confiscation. The core legal question presented in this case was whether the mere citation of the relevant provisions of the Customs Act, allegedly violated, would suffice as "reasons to believe" for the seizure, or whether a more detailed explanation was required. ARGUMENTS PRESENTED Petitioner's Contentions: * The petitioner, the owner of the seized goods, argued that Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, requires the seizing officer to mention the "reasons to believe" that the goods are liable for confiscation in the seizure me....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e the Supreme Court, the interpretation of "reasons to believe" was left open for examination in other cases. The court also considered the circular dated 08.02.2017, which required the seizure panchnama to clearly mention the "reasons to believe" that the goods were liable for confiscation. The court further discussed the decision in The Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Patna v. Sh. Rajendra Sethiya [2024 (3) TMI 1194 - PATNA HIGH COURT], where it was held that merely citing the provisions of law allegedly violated would suffice as "reasons to believe" for the seizure. The court acknowledged the disputed issue regarding whether the driver of the vehicle had produced relevant documents at the time of sei....