Page 234 - ELT_15th July 2020_Vol 373_Part 2

216 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

were frequently seized and subjected to long-drawn confiscation proceed-
ings. In support of the allegation counsel for the petitioner produced an ear-
lier decision of this Court, dated 20-2-2001 in Cr. W.J.C. No. 464 of 2000
(Anatilal Prasad v. Union of India & Ors.) and another analogous case. In that
case the Polythene carry-bags sold by the petitioner unit to two other per-
sons had been similarly seized by the customs officials and challenging the
seizure the two buyers from the petitioner had come to this Court. In the
decision in that case there is a reference to some earlier seizures in which
the resultant confiscation proceedings had failed. In the case of Anatilal Pra-
sad the seizure was held to be bad, illegal and without jurisdiction. But the
facts of an earlier case cannot form the basis to assail a subsequent seizure; so far as
the validity of the impugned seizure is concerned it can only be judged on the basis
of undisputed facts and not on the basis of the allegations made by the petitioner.
This court would, therefore, discount the assertion being made by the peti-
tioner that at the time of inspection by the customs officials, apart from the
challan, a copy of the Bill of Entry too was produced by the driver of the
bus.”
24. I have heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Learned
Counsel appearing on behalf of the Customs and also perused the materials on
record. The contention of the petitioner that the goods were not notified goods
form the basis of his challenge to the action of the respondents. This Court had
issued a specific query to the Customs authorities to justify as to whether the
goods, so seized by its authorities, were specified goods and had been seized
from specified routes. The counter-affidavit filed by the respondents does not, in
any way, substantiate this fact and a perusal of the adjudicatory order indicates
that it was seized from the godown. There is also no satisfaction expressed by the
authorities at the time of seizure that they had “reason to believe” that the goods
so seized were liable for confiscation. Thus, the very initiation of the proceedings
against the petitioner seems to be without jurisdiction.
25. Furthermore, the petitioner has categorically submitted that he
could not be forced to participate in the proceedings, which was without jurisdic-
tion and was liable to be refunded the amount, which was the cost of his goods,
which had been taken in hot haste by the authority without following the due
process of law. The action of the respondents clearly stood vitiated on this count
also and there being no cogent reason to initiate the proceedings against the peti-
tioner, he could not be compelled to participate in the auction and/or subject
himself to the confiscation proceeding which was wholly without jurisdiction
and was being conducted by the same authority, who had ordered the seizure in
his case. Thus, imposition of a penalty after confiscation of the Goat Skins, which
had been illegally auction sold by the authorities, could not be sustained as by no
stretch of imagination the same authority, who issued the show cause notice,
proceed to pass the final orders, in the present case. Such action clearly reveals
the mechanical manner in which the authorities have been functioning and is
indicative of the non-application of mind and also is deemed to be vested with
ulterior motives.
26. This Court also holds that the goods, which had been seized by the
authorities, had been sold even without following the procedure as prescribed
under Section 110(1A) of the Act. It is also strange how the authority has pro-
ceeded to auction sale the property of the petitioner and coerce him into deposit-
ing security amount for release of the same under the condition that he would

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th July 2020  234