The Supreme Court reaffirmed that customs seizures require 'reasonable belief' of contravention, not mere suspicion. The standard is higher than suspicion and must be grounded in credible facts.
SC: Seizures Require Reasonable Belief, Not Suspicion
The Supreme Court has reiterated that the power of seizure under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 must be exercised only upon forming a 'reasonable belief' that goods are liable to confiscation. The Court struck down a seizure of areca nuts by the Patna Zone, holding that the action was based on mere suspicion and lacked material justification.
Justice B.R. Gavai, writing for the bench, distinguished between 'suspicion' and 'reasonable belief,' observing that the latter requires an objective basis derived from reliable information, previous conduct, or indicia of illegality. In this case, the seizure was made at an inland check-post despite the absence of any attempt to evade customs surveillance or concealment.
"An official cannot act on a hunch or generalized anxiety. The formation of belief must be demonstrable and rationally connected to the facts,"
the Court ruled. This principle was further affirmed in parallel rulings by CESTAT Hyderabad and Patna High Court in gold and areca nut seizure cases, emphasizing procedural fairness and the protection of property rights under Article 300A of the Constitution.
Implications for Practitioners
Importers and traders should challenge seizures challenged where the show-cause notice fails to disclose the factual basis for the 'belief.' Legal teams must demand the disclosure of intelligence or inputs relied upon by officers. This line of jurisprudence strengthens the legal safeguards against arbitrary enforcement, especially in inland anti-smuggling operations.
Citations
- Customs Act, 1962, Section 110
- Article 300A, Constitution of India
