Page 199 - ELT_2nd_15th April 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] J.K. TRADERS v. UNION OF INDIA 245

Customs (P), Forbesganj seized the said goods and the vehicle by assigning the
reasons reproduced supra. After drawing samples, vide punchnama dated 6th of
February, 2019, Annexure-R/1 to the counter affidavit, they were sent to the la-
boratory for analysis. The punchnama observed as under :-
“The Customs Officer being not satisfied with the documents produced by
the truck driver, inspected/examined the goods carried in the truck and
found as Dried Areca Nuts appearing as small and round shaped and light
brown in colour. The Customs officers informed that these kind of colour and
shape of the Dried Areca Nuts are not found in Areca Nuts of Indian origin and
those were believed to be of foreign origin. Also the Customs Officer had specific in-
formation about illegal importation of foreign origin ‘Dried Areca Nuts/Betal
Nuts’ thus these kinds of shape, size and colour of Areca Nuts strengthen their be-
lief that those Dried Areca Nuts were actually of foreign origin and were illegally
imported into India. The driver could not produce any documents regarding
importation of said Dried Areca Nuts. The truck along with the loaded
goods (Dried Areca Nuts) were detained by the Customs Officer.”
(Emphasis supplied)
36. The customs authorities sent the samples for analysis to two labora-
tories. The Expert as per the report used the word ‘suspect’. Based thereupon,
petitioners’ request for release of the seized goods was rejected vide communica-
tion dated 29th of March, 2019.
37. Perusing the impugned judgment, we find the Single Judge to have
heavily relied upon the contents of the affidavit filed by the Revenue, wherein it
stood averred that “the Areca Nuts of Indian origin are normally oval in shape”
and it is this which made the Customs Officer forms a reasonable belief that cut
dried Areca were illegally smuggled into India. As we have already observed
that supplementation of reasons is impermissible in law, more so in the attend-
ing facts.
38. Record reveals that the writ petitioners had, in fact, placed on rec-
ord, copies of the orders passed by different Benches of this Court, including a
Division Bench, (CWJC No. 317 of 2012, titled as Yamuna Trading Company & Anr.
v. The Union of India & Ors. decided on 17-1-2013; CWJC No. 3784 of 2013 titled as
Salsar Transport Company & Anr. v. The Union of India & Ors. decided on 4-3-2013,
MJC No. 2185 of 2013, titled as the Union of India & ors. v. The Salsar Transport
Company & Anr, decided on 24-7-2013; CWJC No. 7589 of 2018, titled as M/s. Aye-
sha Exports v. The Union of India & Ors. decided on 24-1-2019; and LPA No. 1186
of 2013, titled as the Union of India & Ors. v. Salsar Transport Company & Ors. de-
cided on 25-11-2013.
39. Significantly, one of such decision, i.e. CWJC No. 7589 of 2018, titled
as M/s. Ayesha Exports v. The Union of India & Ors. decided on 24-1-2019 is by the
very same Learned Judge in which the goods stood released.
40. Be that as it may, in the instant case, we find the Learned Singe
Judge to have been swayed with five notifications/circulars/memorandum
placed on record by the Revenue, (i) Circular No. 3 of 2011 dated 6th January,
2011 issued by the Ministry of Finance in the Department of Revenue, Central
Board of Excise and Customs; (hereinafter referred to as ‘Circular No. 3 of 2011’);
(ii) Circular No. 35 of 2017 dated 16th August, 2017 providing guidelines for
provisional release of seized imported goods pending adjudication (hereinafter
referred to as ‘Circular No. 35 of 2017’); (iii) Circular dated 20th November, 2018
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th April 2020  215