Page 193 - ELT_2nd_15th April 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] J.K. TRADERS v. UNION OF INDIA 239

Seizure order - Reason to believe - Mere suspicion cannot be reason
sufficient enough to derive conclusion forming belief ‘for reason to believe.’
[para 43]
Petition allowed
CASES CITED
Aslam Mohammad Merchant v. Competent Authority — (2008) 14 SCC 186
— Relied on ...................................................................................................................................... [Para 24]
Assistant Collector v. Charan Das Malhotra — 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1477 (S.C.) — Relied on ............. [Para 21]
Ayesha Exports v. Union of India — 2020 (371) E.L.T. 353 (Pat.) — Relied on ........... [Paras 16, 17, 38, 39]
Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dabholkar — (1976) 2 SCC 291 — Relied on ......................... [Para 25]
Bawa Gopal Das Bedi & Sons v. Union of India — 1982 (10) E.L.T. 351 (Pat.) — Followed .......... [Para 34]
Bhikhubhai Vithlabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat — (2008) 4 SCC 144 — Relied on ......................... [Para 29]
Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income-Tax Officer — AIR 1961 SC 372 — Relied on ..................... [Para 27]
Hukma v. State of Rajasthan — 2008 (228) E.L.T. 8 (S.C.) — Relied on ............................................ [Para 23]
Income-Tax Officer I v. Lakhmani Mewal Das — (1976) 3 SCC 757 — Relied on ........................... [Para 28]
Indian Nut Products v. Union of India — (1994) 4 SCC 269 — Relied on ........................................ [Para 30]
Indru Ramchand Bharvani v. Union of India — 1992 (59) E.L.T. 201 (S.C.) — Relied on .............. [Para 32]
J.K. Bardolia Mills v. M.L. Khunger, Deputy Collector — 1994 (72) E.L.T. 813 (S.C.)
— Relied on ..................................................................................................................................... [Para 33]
Kewal Krishan v. State of Punjab — 1993 (67) E.L.T. 17 (S.C.) — Relied on .................................... [Para 22]
Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner — AIR 1978 SC 851 — Relied on .............. [Para 18]
S. Narayanappa v. Commissioner of Income Tax — AIR 1967 SC 523 — Relied on ...................... [Para 26]
Salsar Transport Company v. Union of India — CWJC No. 3784 of 2013,
decided on 4-3-2013 by Patna High Court — Referred ............................................................. [Para 38]
Sheo Nath Singh v. CIT — (1972) 3 SCC 234 — Relied on .................................................................. [Para 31]
Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhathija v. Collector — AIR 1990 SC 261 — Referred ...................................... [Para 17]
Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2015 (320) E.L.T. 45 (S.C.) — Relied on .......................... [Para 20]
Union of India v. Salsar Transport Company — LPA No. 1186 of 2013,
decided on 25-11-2013 by Patna High Court — Followed ............................................... [Paras 38, 48]
Union of India v. Salsar Transport Company — MJC No. 2185 of 2013,
decided on 24-7-2013 by Patna High Court — Followed .................................................. [Paras 38, 48]
Yamuna Trading Company v. Union of India — CWJC No. 317 of 2012, decided on 17-1-2013
by Patna High Court — Referred ................................................................................................. [Para 38]
DEPARTMENTAL CLARIFICATIONS CITED
C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 3/2011, dated 6-1-2011 ........................................................................ [Paras 40, 42]
C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 35/2017, dated 16-8-2017 .................................................................... [Paras 40, 45]
C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 30/2017, dated 18-7-2017 .................................................................... [Paras 40, 47]
FSSAI Circular dated 20-11-2018 ................................................................................................... [Paras 40, 46]
M.C. & I. (D.C.) Memorandum dated 4-6-2019 ................................................................................... [Para 40]
REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri Y.V. Giri, Senior Advocate, Amit Kumar
Mishra and Amit Pandey, Advocates, for the Appel-
lant.
S/Shri S.D. Sanjay, Addl. S.G. and Anshuman
Singh, Advocate, for the Respondent.
[Judgment per : Sanjay Karol, CJ. (CAV)]. - What is the meaning of the
expressions ‘reason to believe’ and ‘liable to confiscation’ under Section 110 of
the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is the question which
we are called upon to answer.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th April 2020  209