Page 232 - ELT_15th July 2020_Vol 373_Part 2

214 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

Provided that where it is not practicable to seize any such goods, the
proper officer may serve on the owner of the goods an order that he shall
not remove, part with, or otherwise deal with the goods except with the
previous permission of such officer.
(1A) The Central Government may, having regard to the perishable or
hazardous nature of any goods, depreciation in the value of the goods with
the passage of time, constraints of storage space for the goods or any other
relevant considerations, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify the
goods or class of goods which shall, as soon as may be after its seizure un-
der sub-section (1), be disposed of by the proper officer in such manner as
the Central Government may, from time to time, determine after following
the procedure hereinafter specified.”
14. It was submitted by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that as
per Notification No. 32/2005-Cus. (N.T.), dated 11-4-2005, issued under Section
110(1A) of the Act, seizure can be validly made under Section 110 of the Act if
the officer making the seizure has reason to believe that any goods are liable to
confiscation under the Act. Where seizure has been made on the basis of mere
suspicion and/or presumption and the condition precedent for the exercise of
power under Section 110 of the Act being absent, the order of seizure cannot be
said to be in accordance with law.
15. In the instant case, Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the “reasonable belief” and the “reason for formation of such belief” crystal-
lize when the seizures are made and any subsequent information or fact coming
to the knowledge of the seizing officer can be of no avail to him and he cannot act
on the reason to believe for coming to a conclusion that the goods are liable for
confiscation. Thus, the authorities could not place reliance on any subsequent
facts or information received by them and such consideration would render the
entire proceedings beyond jurisdiction.
16. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that since a
valid seizure is a sine quo non of the confiscation proceeding, any confiscation
proceeding, which followed the illegal seizure, would render the confiscation
proceedings also illegal.
17. Having heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner, it appears that
though show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner after the seizure,
there is nothing on the record to specify and prove that the goods were, in fact,
specified goods liable for confiscation under the Act. The entire seizure and ad-
judication proceedings have been initiated on a presumption that Goat Skin is a
notified item and place of search was a notified area, attracting the jurisdiction of
the Customs authority. Thus, the entire proceeding was wholly erroneous and
could not be sustained in the eyes of law.
18. The aforementioned reasoning has been supported by the Learned
Counsel for the petitioner, who has relied on a Division Bench decision of this
Court in the case of Angou Golmei v. Union of India, reported in 1994 (1) PLJR 800
= 1996 (81) E.L.T. 446 (Pat.), wherein this issue has been clearly explained and it
has been held as follows :
“21. The expression ‘reasonable belief’ or ‘reason to believe ‘occurs
in several statutes. Reference may be made to Section 147(a) of the Income
Tax Act, 1961; Section 178A of the Sea Customs Act, 1978; Section 66 of
Gold (Control) Act, 1968 and so on. In Calcutta Discount Col. Ltd. v. Income

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th July 2020  232