Page 159 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

2020 ] OM SAI TRADING COMPANY v. UNION OF INDIA 549

ing importation of said Dried Areca Nuts. The truck along with the loaded
goods (cut 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 2nd of April, 2019. However, vide order dated 9th April, 2019, the ve-
hicle in question was released.
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 Nuts were illegally smuggled into India. As we have already ob-
served that supplementation of reasons is impermissible in law, more so in the
attending 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.
Ayesha 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.
decided 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 Single
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
issued by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (A Statutory Author-
ity established under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006); (hereinafter re-
ferred to as ‘Circular dated 20th November, 2018’); (iv) Circular No. 30 of 2017,
dated 18th July, 2017 issued by Ministry of Finance with regard to re-testing of
samples; (hereinafter referred to as ‘Circular No. 30 of 2017’); and (v) Memoran-
dum dated 4th of June, 2019 issued by the Ministry of Commerce, Government of
India (hereinafter referred to as ‘Memorandum dated 4th of June, 2019’).
41. And not having gone into the relevancy of each one of them, with-
out assigning any reason with regard thereto, germane to the issue, by presum-
ing the same to be ipso facto applicable, the Learned Judge concluded the De-
partment to have lawfully seized the goods and the vehicle.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  159