RAJ KUMAR AGRAWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in the above writ application are aggrieved with the seizure of goods and the adjudication order passed, bearing No. 64-Cus/JC/Denovo/FBG/2014 dtd. 13/3/2015, produced at Annexure-11.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the reason for seizure or detention was not the ground on which the adjudication proceedings were initiated; which vitiates the seizure. Sec. 100 of the Customs Act, 1962 requires 'reasons to believe' for making seizure of goods. In the present case, the seizure was made purportedly for violation of provisions of Notification No. 9/96 (N.T)-Cus dtd. 22/1/1996, issued under Sec. 11 of the Customs Act. The notification was with respect to import of goods into India from Nepal; goods which have been imported into Nepal from other countries. However, the show-cause notice and the adjudication order proceeded on the basis that there was illegal export attempted by the petitioners. The goods seized was sugar which has not been notified under Sec. 11 of the Act. Further, the petitioners had specifically sought for cross-examination of the officer who made the seizure, which request though recorded in the adjudication order, was not permitted.

(3.) Reliance was placed on Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited and others v. Ananta Saha and others; (2011) 5 SCC 142 to contend that when the foundation itself is removed, i.e. the seizure is vitiated, the superstructure falls. If the 'reason to believe' is found to be not valid then necessarily there can be no valid seizure or further adjudication on the basis of the invalid seizure. Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-II; (2016) 15 SCC 785 was relied on to emphasize that the right to cross-examine a witness before the adjudicating authority is fundamental to the principles of natural justice.