Skip to main content

Mere recording of satisfaction is not enough for search & seizure under Customs Act

Cause Title : Union Of India vs M/s. Magnum Steel Ltd., Civil Appeal Nos. 9597-9599 Of 2011, Supreme Court

Date of Judgment/Order : 02.03.2023

Corum : S. Ravindra Bhat & Dipankar Datta,  JJ

Citied: 

  1. State of Rajasthan vs. Rehman, AIR 1960 (SC) 210
  2. Durga Prasad Etc. vs. H.R. Gomes, AIR 1966 (SC) 1209

Background

The respondent’s premises were subject to search and seizure proceedings conducted by the Revenue dept. which had drawn up a Panchnama listing out materials and documents seized in the course of the proceedings. The said s & s were appeal against by the respondent and the High Court had quashed the initiation of search and seizure proceedings and all consequential proceedings, launched against the respondent/assessee. Hence this appeal.

Judgment

The Supreme Court observed that when the High Court had called for the original record, the revenue had produced the warrant of seizure which had mentioned about some information, placed before the concerned officer leading the officer to conclude the goods were liable to confiscation existed. He, therefore, had authorized the search. However, the file itself did not contain any material to disclose what was placed before the officer – nor was there any noting on it to link the nature of the materials (however briefly) with the decision to search to legitimize the search proceedings. The Revenue Dept. had rather contended that there were intelligence reports which resulted in the authorized official concluding that a search was essential but could not produce any material to confirm that such intelligence report existed.

The SC held that the Section 105 of the Customs Act confers power to search premises if the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs “has reasons to believe” that goods liable to confiscation or documents relevant for such proceedings are secreted in any place. In such event, the search proceedings can be authorized by the Assistant Commissioner or other official.

The basic premise of Section 105, and indeed search proceedings is the reasonable belief that some objective material exists on the official record to trigger searches. The person authorizing the search must express his satisfaction that the material is sufficient for him to conclude that search is necessary; further there should exist something to show what is such material. The mere recording that the person concerned is satisfied, without the supportive materials, therefore, is insufficient to trigger a lawful search.

In the present case the concerned official who authorized the search did not refer to any information nor indeed any report on the record which was produced before the High Court. The SC was satisfied that there is no merit in the appeals which were accordingly dismissed.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more