Page 152 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

542 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

2020 (372) E.L.T. 542 (Pat.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Sanjay Karol, CJ and Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J.
OM SAI TRADING COMPANY
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
Letters Patent Appeal No. 1153 of 2019 and Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10109
of 2019, decided on 20-12-2019
1
Seizure of goods - Reason to believe not to be supplemented by fresh
reasons after search or seizure - Goods originated from the State of Assam and
transported to the State of Tamil Nadu (Coimbatore), both the places being in
India not in any specified/notified area - No other material available on record
for seizure of goods except what is recorded in seizure memo - Grounds on
which ‘reason to believe’ formed cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in
the shape of an affidavit - Mere suspicion cannot be a reason sufficient enough
to derive such a conclusion forming a belief ‘for reason to believe’ - Goods in
question when yet raw, as an unfinished product, meant to be transported to
another State for it to be processed and packaged, whereafter, only, eventually
sold in an open market and if goods are actually unsafe food then it is not the
provision of the Customs Act, 1962 which can be invoked, for not falling with-
in its purview - Seizure notice quashed - Section 110 of Customs Act, 1962.
[paras 35, 37, 43, 49, 50]
Reason to believe - Meaning and scope - “Reason to believe” not the
subjective satisfaction of the officer concerned but to be exercised in accord-
ance with restraints imposed by law and such belief must be that of an honest
and reasonable person based upon reasonable grounds - Reasons should either
appear on the face of the notice or must be available on the materials which
had been placed before him - Section 110 of Customs Act, 1962. [paras 18, 20,
24]
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 v. Union of India — 1982 (10) E.L.T. 351 (Pat.) — Relied on ...................... [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 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]
________________________________________________________________________
1 On appeal from 2019 (368) E.L.T. 620 (Pat.).
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  152