Page 324 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

970 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372
Search (Contd.)
grave suspicion regarding manner and mode of search and seizure, and it
could not be used for conviction of offence under Wild Life (Protection)
Act, 1972 — Quasim Ali v. Sajal Baran Das (Cal.) .................... 673
— and seizure undertaken by Customs Department in bonded warehouse on
clandestine removal of liquor, subsequent FIR filed by Police not
sustainable - See under POLICE AND VIOLATION OF CUSTOMS ACT,
1962 ......................................... 314
— of persons under Customs Act - Scope of - In case of search of persons
under Sections 100 and 101 of Customs Act, 1962, accused has a right to
be asked as to whether he wishes to be searched in presence of Gazetted
Officer of Customs or wishes to be taken before nearest Magistrate for
such search - Denial of this right would make the search illegal - Section
102 of Customs Act, 1962 — Union of India v. Jasmine Jayantilal Thadeshwar (Bom.) ... 817
— under Customs Act, scope of - See under PROSECUTION ............ 817
Seized goods alleged to be smuggled - Release of - Confiscation (Customs) -
Seizure of vehicle carrying ‘Full dried Areca Nuts’ allegedly smuggled
from Nepal - Application for release of goods rejected on the ground that
report of laboratory indicating that goods suspected to be not fit for
human consumption - HELD : Consignor and consignee recorded and
identified - Goods not seized at any notified Customs zone or area -
Additional Solicitor General trying to supplement reasons for formation
of ‘reason to believe’, on mere suspicion, through affidavit of authority -
General practice in trade cannot be, ipso facto, applied and adopted in
instant case, for unless act and conduct of petitioner makes him to be part
and parcel of trading community, based in area or dealing with illegal
activities of such like nature - No track record of past history of instant
petitioners - Relevancy of each of five notifications/circulars/
memorandum placed on record by Revenue not examined and reasons
not assigned with regard thereto - No live link or tell a tale sign of
product being of foreign origin or having passed through territory other
than India, much less Nepal - If goods “unsafe food”, authorities under
relevant Act, ought to proceed and take appropriate action, for mere
report in that regard not to confer any jurisdiction upon Customs Officer
under Customs Act - Goods in question yet raw, unfinished product,
meant to be transported to another State for processing and packaging,
whereafter, only, eventually same sold in open market - No reason to
differ with judgment in Salsar Transport Company - Section 110 of
Customs Act, 1962 — J.K. Traders v. Union of India (Pat.) ................ 237
Seizure of forex and Indian currency from incoming passenger, confiscation
and penalty sustainable - See under CONFISCATION AND PENALTY .... 750
— 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
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  324