Page 231 - ELT_15th July 2020_Vol 373_Part 2

2020 ] FIROZ ALAM v. UNION OF INDIA 213

or other border of India, as the Central Government may, having re-
gard to the vulnerability of that area to smuggling, by notification in
the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf :
Provided that where a part of any village, town or city falls within a
specified area, the whole of such village, town or city shall, notwith-
standing that the whole of it is not within one hundred kilometres
from any coast or other border of India, be deemed to be included in
such specified area;
(d) “specified date” in relation to specified goods, means the date on
which any notification is issued under Section 11-I in relation to those
goods in any specified area;
(e) “specified goods” means goods of any description specified in the no-
tification issued under Section 11-I in relation to a specified area.”
11. The petitioner thus submitted that the “specified goods”, as per Sec-
tion 11H(e), means goods of any description specified in the notification issued
under Section 11-I in relation to an specified area. He further submitted that Goat
Skins are not specified goods as per the Official Gazette, for which the provisions
of the Act could apply for the purpose of checking the illegal export or facilitat-
ing the detection of goods which are likely to be illegally exported. In view of the
fact that no such notification has been issued specifying the Goat Skins as speci-
fied goods, the petitioner could not be subjected to any charge of illegal export,
much less of having violated the provisions of the Act.
12. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the goods
were recovered from the petitioner’s premises and there is nothing on the record
to show that they were meant for illegal export so as to invite the application of
Sections 50 and 51 of the Act for taking clearance of export goods. Thus, as a nat-
ural corollary, the confiscation proceedings initiated under Section 113(b) and (c)
could not be invoked. Section 113(b) and (c) of the Act are quoted hereunder :
“113. Confiscation of goods attempted to be improperly exported, etc. —
The following export goods shall be liable to confiscation :—
(a) … … … …… …… …… …… …
(b) any goods attempted or to be exported by land or inland water
through any route other than a route specified in a notification issued
under clause (c) of Section 7 for the export of such goods;
(c) any goods brought near the land frontier or the coast of India or near
any bay, gulf, creek or tidal river for the purpose of being exported
from a place other than a land customs station or a customs port ap-
pointed for the loading of such goods;”
13. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Section 110 of the
Act relates to search for any goods liable to confiscation, if the proper officer has
“reason to believe” that such person to whom this Section apply has apprehen-
sion that any goods are liable to confiscation. Thus, the words “reason to believe”
is crucial to the application of this Section. It is useful to quote Sections 110(1)
and 110(1A) of the Act, which are reproduced hereunder :
“110. Seizure of goods, documents and things. - (1) If the proper officer
has reason to believe that any goods are liable to confiscation under this
Act, he may seize such goods :

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th July 2020  231