MAA SARASWATI TRADERS THROUGH THE LEGAL POWER OF ATTORNEY Vs. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed on 4.8.2011 by the petitioner challenging the seizure memo dated 7.6.2011 (Annexure-5) issued by the Customs (Prev.) Division, Muzaffarpur by which 29,336 Kgs. of betel nuts and two trucks bearing Registration Nos. UP-32-CZ/3395 and UP-78-AT/ 2212 were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of brevity) for alleged violation of Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Notification No. 9-Cus/96 dated 22.1.1996 and 37/96 dated 23.7.1996 issued under Section 11 of the Act read with Section 3(11) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1962 as well as the provisions of Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

(2.) The claim of the petitioner is that the impugned order was shown to have been made on 7.6.2011 at 18.00 hrs. although the trucks and their drivers were detained on 6.6.2011 itself while the drivers had parked their trucks at the Petrol Pump for taking tea, but the said trucks and drivers were produced before the Magistrate on 9.6.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that this practice has been severely deprecated by a Division Bench of this court in case of Rajjan Lal Sri Lal Man vs. Union of India through Commissioner of Customs & Ors., 2011 4 PLJR 635.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that in the pleadings and the orders of the respondents no 'reason to believe' has been spelt out nor any material was admittedly available with them at the time of seizure. Hence there being neither any material nor any 'reason to believe' there was no occasion for the authorities to make the aforesaid seizure. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon two decisions of Division Benches of this court in case of Angou Golmei & Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors., 1994 1 PLJR 800and in case of Shiv Kumar Bhagat vs. State of Bihar & Ors., 2005 4 PLJR 276and he also relied upon two decisions of the Supreme Court in case of Pukhraj vs. D.R. Kohli, Collector of Central Excise, Madhya Pradesh and Vidarbha and Another, 1962 AIR(SC) 1559and in case of State of Gujrat vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal and Another, 1987 AIR(SC) 1321.