AYESHA EXPORTS THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MAJHARUL HAQUE S/O MD.ILIAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVT.OF INDIA, NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is permitted to add the Commissioner, Customs, Central Revenue Buliding, Vir Chand Patel Path, Patna as a party respondent.

(2.) This writ application is concerned with 940 bags of betel nut which were seized by the Customs Authority. Mr. N.K. Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that first Government imposed a ban on import of betel nut through Nepal. The petitioner challenged the same before this Court and after the matter was referred by a Single Judge to the Division Bench, the Division Bench of this Court declared the said notification to be bad, thus, legalising and/or permitting import of betel nut through Nepal. Now when the petitioner was transporting betel nut, the same has been seized on the ground that it is betel nut from Malaysia. There are conflicting reports obtained later. One report says it is deteriorated betel nut not fit for human consumption. Mr. Agarwal raises an issue of law that in terms of Section 110 of Customs Act, before the Customs Authority can exercise the power of search and seizure, they must have "reason to believe" regarding contravention of law. He submits that any subsequent acquisition of any knowledge or any discrepancy will not make good the initial reason to believe which is a condition precedent and a check on otherwise drastic powers. He submits that prior to the seizure, the only information, the Customs Authority had, that there was likelihood of smuggling. That is no reason to believe.

(3.) Be that as it may, in my view, it is not necessary for this Court to decide this issue at this stage as Mr. Agarwal restricts the relief sought for the release of aforesaid 940 bags of betel nut in favour of the petitioner pending enquiry and/or proceeding inasmuch as continued seizure of betel nut would damage the same causing irreparable loss to the petitioner.