Page 158 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

548 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

conditions existed when the order was made. A person aggrieved by such
action can question the satisfaction by showing that it was wholly based on
irrelevant grounds and hence amounted to no satisfaction at all. In other
words, the existence of the circumstances in question is open to judicial
review.”
31. The reason to believe as held in Sheo Nath Singh v. CIT, (1972) 3 SCC
234, cannot be basis on mere suspicion, gossip or rumour though belief on an
honest basis and on reasonable grounds and the officer may act on direct or cir-
cumstantial evidence. However, if the officer were to act without any material or
irrelevant, extraneous material, it would constitute an act without jurisdiction.
32. Sabayasachi Mukharji J., in Indru Ramchand Bharvani & Ors. v. Union
of India & Ors. (1988) 4 SCC 1 = 1992 (59) E.L.T. 201 (S.C.), has clarified that “the
expression ‘reasonable belief’ has to be adjudged from the perspective of a per-
son having an experienced eye”, well equipped to interpret the suspicious cir-
cumstances and to form reasonable belief”.
33. Kuldip Singh J., in M/s. J.K. Bardolia Mills v. M.L. Khunger, Dy. Col-
lector and Others, (1994) 5 SCC 332 = 1994 (72) E.L.T. 813 (S.C.) has held failure on
the part of the authorities to issue show cause notice obliges the authorities to
return the goods without continuance of adjudicatory proceedings in respect
thereof.
34. We are proceeding to quash the seizure notice and not relegating
the petitioners to an adjudicatory proceedings, and we are also fortified to form
such an opinion, in view of the earlier decision rendered by this Court for Co-
ordinate Bench in Bawa Gopal Das Bedi & Sons and Others v. Union of India and
Others, AIR 1982 Patna 152 = 1982 (10) E.L.T. 351 (Pat.) wherein under similar
circumstances, in a writ jurisdiction, the Court quashed similar proceedings ra-
ther than making the party undergo the adjudicatory process for the proceedings
initiated without any basis.
35. Referring again to the instant case, we notice that the goods as per
invoice (pages 38-39) originated from the State of Assam on 1st of February, 2019.
They were to be transported to the State of Tamil Nadu (Coimbatore). Both the
places are in India not in any specified/notified area under the Act but are the
National Highways in the State of Bihar. On 6th of February, 2019, Inspec-
tor/S.O., Customs (P), Forbesganj seized the said goods and the vehicle by as-
signing the reasons reproduced supra. After drawing samples, vide punchnama
dated 6th of February, 2019, Annexure-A to the counter affidavit, they were sent
to the laboratory for analysis. The punchnama observed as under :-
“The Customs Officer being not satisfied with the documents pro-
duced by the truck driver, inspected/examined the goods carried in the
truck and found as cut Dried Areca Nuts appearing as cut dried and dark
pink in colour. The Customs officers informed that these kind of colour of Dried
Areca Nuts are not found in Areca Nuts of Indian origin and those were believed to
be of 3rd country/foreign origin. Also the Customs Officer had specific information
about illegal importation/smuggling of foreign origin ‘Dried Areca Nuts/Betal
Nuts thus appearance of these kinds of Areca Nuts strengthen their belief that those
Dried Areca Nuts were actually of foreign origin and were illegally import-
ed/smuggled into India. The driver could not produce any documents regard-
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  158