Page 154 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

544 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

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 ‘cut dried Areca Nuts
(dark pink in colour)’ weighing 15,865 kgs. of a total estimated value of
Rs. 45,14,862/- along with the vehicle were seized by the Inspector-cum-S.O.,
Customs (P), Forbesganj for the reason that “Violation of provision of Notifica-
tion No. 9/96-Cus. (N.T.), dated 22-1-1996, issued under Section 11 of the Cus-
toms Act, 1962 read with Section 3(2) of Foreign Trade (Development and Regu-
lation) 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 earmarked 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.
14. The consignors, M/s. Om Sai Trading Company and M/s. Maa
Kamakhya Traders, who are appellants, are registered dealers under the provi-
sions of GST Act and the consignee is M/s. Mahaveer Traders, 158G, Sri Kaliki
Nawas, Coimbatore (Tamilnadu) is also a registered dealer under GST Act.
15. With these undisputed facts, before us, Learned Additional Solicitor
General of the India, Shri S.D. Sanjay invites our attention to the general practice
of trade of illegal transportation of such goods from Nepal into India. For entry
of such goods imported from anywhere other than India, is prohibited in law.
But is it really so? in the instant case. Well except for bald assertion, there is noth-
ing to support such a statement.
16. It is seen that the Learned Single Judge by distinguishing its earlier
decision rendered in M/s. Ayesha Exports v. The Union of India (CWJC No. 7589 of
2018) [2020 (371) E.L.T. 353 (Pat.)] dealing with the very same issue directing re-
lease of the goods on the very same set of facts, dismissed the writ petition hold-
ing that there was a report of the laboratory indicating the goods to be not fit for
human consumption; that investigation would reveal as to whether the goods
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  154