Page 94 - ELT_3rd_1st May 2020_Vol 372_Part

316 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

4.1 Learned Senior Advocate Mr. N.D. Nanavaty for the applicant in
Criminal Misc. Application No. 13841 of 2012 has contended that the applicant
was possessing the licence to carry out the business of import and export of liq-
uor within the territorial jurisdiction of the Customs Department and conse-
quently, so far as the case of present applicant is concerned, no provisions of the
Gujarat Prohibition Act would be applicable. Further, Learned Senior Advocate
has read over the entire F.I.R. in presence of Learned APP as well as Investigat-
ing Officer Mr. Suthar and has contended that even if the entire F.I.R. may be
believed to be true, then also, no provisions of Sections 66(1)(b) and 65(a)(e)
would be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.
4.2 Learned Advocate Mr. Ankit Shah for the applicants - officials of
the Customs Department in Criminal Misc. Application No. 14654 of 2012 has
pointed out that the police is not empowered to carry out any search & seizure
procedure within the territorial jurisdiction of Custom’s bonded warehouse
which is under the exclusive control of the Customs Department and the Central
Government. Learned advocate has further contended that the police by creating
ego issue, tried to usurp the powers vested in the Customs Department and un-
necessarily harassed the licensee and the official of the Customs Department who
were discharging their duties in accordance with the provisions of Customs Act,
1962. Learned advocate has also contended that the infirmities and deficiencies
were noticed by the officials of the Customs Department at the time of import of
such goods and the matter was carried up to the competent authority for confis-
cation of the goods and for taking departmental actions which culminated into
passing the order of confiscation as well as other penalties under the provisions
of the Customs Act. Learned advocate has contended that there was no necessity
of interference by the police as the Customs Department was adequately and
sufficiently looking after the affairs of the licensee.
4.3 Learned Senior Advocate Mr. N.D. Nanavaty has relied upon the
decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Hotel Ashoka v. Assistant Commis-
sioner of Commercial Taxes reported in 2012 (276) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.), to point out that
since the goods were lying in the bonded warehouse, it is nobody’s case that the
goods had crossed customs frontiers and consequently, the police has no authori-
ty to carry out any search & seizure and/or carry raid under the provisions of the
Gujarat Prohibition Act and in view of clear provisions of the Customs Act as
well as other laws applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.
4.4 Learned Senior Advocate Mr. N.D. Nanavaty has further pointed
out that from the impugned F.I.R. itself, it has been proved that there was a defi-
ciency and some bottles were in excess. He has further pointed out that there was
a deficiency in maintaining the books of account and that infirmity was noticed
and ultimately, the punishment was given by the Department of Customs, may
be believed to be true, then also, in absence of any linking evidence or allegation
that licensee was out to sell somebody or out to consume unauthorizedly or al-
leged consumption of liquor to anybody, no provisions of Section 66(1)(b) would
be applicable.
4.5 On the other hand, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Ro-
nak Raval has strongly opposed against quashment of the F.I.R. Learned APP has
contended that though the seal was applied by the police, the Customs Depart-
ment removed the same and carried out the search & seizure procedure for
which they were not authorized. He has further contended that since it was the
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st May 2020  94