NARAYAN CH. SAHA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of seizure, whereby padlocks being transported by the petitioner were seized. According to the petitioner, he had purchased some padlocks at the rates mentioned in the invoice which is attached as Annexure -P/3 of the writ petition. When the goods were at Churaibari Check Post, the Officer -in -Charge of the check post found that the petitioner had under -valued the price of the goods in the invoice. He has specifically given reasons for two items i.e. iron padlocks measuring 35 mm and iron padlocks measuring 60 mm.

(2.) THIS Court in a number of decisions has held that the Officer -in -Charge of the check post must give some grounds as to why he has come to the conclusion that the goods are under -valued. In the present case, we find that he has given certain grounds. The Officer -in -Charge of the check post has stated that the iron padlocks of 35 mm were declared to be valued at Rs. 45/ - per dozen i.e. Rs. 3.75/ - per piece but the MRP mentioned on the packing of each lock was Rs. 35/ - per piece. In respect of the iron padlocks of 60 mm. the price was shown to be Rs. 11.25 per piece but the MRP was shown to be Rs. 82/ - per piece. He came to the conclusion that the market value of the 35 mm. padlock was Rs. 12/ - per piece and that of the 60 mm. padlock was Rs. 38/ - per piece. This according to him was the market price which is also much lower than the MRP shown in the packet items.

(3.) IN this given background, the Officer -in -Charge of the Churaibari Check Post would be justified in seizing the entire goods because he cannot at the check post, assess the value of each and every type of padlock. He has given reasons for a representative sample which in our opinion ex facie shows that the goods are highly under -valued. However, it is not for this Court to decide what is the exact value of the goods is. For that evidence will have to be led. As far as the seized materials are concerned those have been released in favour of the petitioner by interim order on his furnishing bank guarantee. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: