1982 (2) TMI 75

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by one Marukh Mohammed on 25-10-1980 and he had paid the requisite import duty at the Bombay Customs Office vide Baggage Receipt No. 334651, dated 25th October, 1980. This Marukh Mohammed transferred the imported Colour T.V. and Video Cassette Recorder to petitioner No. 2, Babu Singh and the same were fitted in the Bus. On 17-11-1981, Officers of the Central Excise Department, headed by the respondent No. 1, Superintendent Central Excise (Preventive) visited the office of the petitioner and seized the said T.V. and Video Cassette Recorder along with the Baggage Receipt and T.V. Licence in the name of the petitioner No. 2, Babu Singh. 3. Petitioners have challenged the seizure on the ground that the requisite import duty on the Televisio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on the provisions of Section 110 of the Customs Act, which empowers an authorised officer to seize the goods only if he has reason to believe that any goods are liable to confiscation under the Customs Act. Learned Counsel vehemently argued that there was no such reason to believe for seizure of the goods in question. He referred to two decisions in support of his contention. They are Nathalla Sompathu Chetty and another v. Collector Customs, Madras (A.I.R. 1959, Madras 142) and M.G. Abrol and another v. Amichand Vallami and others (A.I.R. 1961, Bombay 227). We have carefully perused both these authorities and we are clear that they are distinguishable on facts. In the case of N.S. Chetty (supra) after the investigation was completed, the C....