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

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
Post a Comment
Read more