Page 194 - ELT_2nd_15th April 2020_Vol 372_Part

240 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

2. Section 2 of the Act dealing with the definition(s) does not define ei-
ther of the expressions ‘reason to believe’ and ‘liable to confiscation’.
3. Chapter XIII (Sections 100 to 110A) inter alia deals with the provi-
sions of search, seizure and arrest. Chapter XIV (Sections 111 to 127) deals with
the confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty. Section 111 throws some
light with regard to the nature of goods which are liable for confiscation.
4. Section 2(25) of the Act defines “imported goods” to mean any goods
brought into India from a place outside India but does not include goods cleared
for home consumption. Section 2(11) defines “customs area” to mean any area of
a customs station or a warehouse and includes any area in which imported
goods or export goods are ordinarily kept before clearance by Customs Authori-
ties and “smuggling” in relation to any goods as per sub-section (39) of Section 2
means an act or omission which will render such goods liable to confiscation un-
der Section 111 or Section 113.
5. Chapter IV of the Act empowers the Central Government to prohibit
importation and exportation of any goods and Chapters IV-A and IV-B deal with
the detection of illegally imported goods and prevention of the disposal thereof.
6. Section 111 defines the category of goods brought from a place out-
side India liable to be confiscated.
7. We are dealing with a case where betel nuts having its origin from a
country other than India, are prohibited to be imported in India, and as such by
virtue of Section 111, liable to be confiscated, i.e. the meaning of the expression
“liable to confiscation”. But what is important and a condition precedent, sine qua
non, is the belief of the officer seizing the goods of forming an opinion in terms of
the statutory expression “reason to believe” of such goods being liable to confis-
cation.
8. In the instant case, goods having description ‘Full dried Areca Nuts
(round in shape and light brown in colour)’ weighing 23,660 Kgs of a total esti-
mated value of Rs. 67,33,163/- along with the vehicle were seized by the Inspec-
tor-cum-S.O., Customs (P), Forbesganj for the reason that “Violation of provision
of Notification No. 9/96 (NT)-Cus, dated 22-1-1996, issued under Section 11 of
the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3(2) of Foreign Trade (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1992 and Notifications, order etc. issued thereunder.”
9. Record reveals that petitioners’ application for release of the goods
stood rejected for the reason that the prescribed authority had got the seized
sample of the product tested from the laboratories which was classified as unsafe
food.
10. Undisputedly, the goods are owned by the petitioners.
11. Significantly, they were not seized from any of the zones identified
and ear-marked as a Warehouse or a Check post notified under the Customs Act.
The vehicle was checked on the Toll Collection Point set up on the Highway in
Bihar, within the Indian territory.
12. Before us, despite repeated queries, no material stands produced,
even ex facie, indicating that the vehicle carrying goods or the goods, at any point
in time, passed through or had its origin outside the territory of India and, more
specifically Nepal.
13. The documents produced by the owner indicated the name of the
consignor and consignee, both within the territory of India and the vehicle trav-
elled all through the States of Indian Union.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th April 2020  210