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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more