Assistant Sub-Inspector of SSB Not Competent to Seize Wheat under Customs Act: Patna HC Orders Refund with Interest [Read Order]
Patna High Court ruled that an ASI of SSB was not competent to seize wheat under the Customs Act and ordered refund of its value with interest
In a recent ruling, the Patna High Court held that an Assistant Sub-Inspector of the Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) was not competent to seize wheat under the Customs Act, 1962, and that the seizure memo was invalid as it did not record the mandatory “reason to believe.” The court quashed the confiscation order and directed a refund of the value of wheat with interest.
Fariyad Alam, the petitioner, filed a writ petition challenging the seizure of 35 bags of wheat by an Assistant Sub-Inspector of SSB near the Indo-Nepal border on 21 April 2023. The wheat and the tractor carrying it were seized and handed over to Customs.
Law Simplified with Tables, Charts & Illustrations – Easy to Understand - Click here
A seizure memo was prepared citing violations of various provisions of the Customs Act and the Foreign Trade Act. During the pendency of the writ petition, an adjudication order dated 22 December 2023 confiscated the goods and the vehicle. The wheat was later sold in an e-auction on 1 February 2024.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the seizure was unlawful because the ASI of SSB was not authorised under Section 110 of the Customs Act to seize goods. They further argued that the seizure memo did not contain any “reason to believe,” which is a statutory requirement.
They also argued that the adjudication order was passed in hot haste during the pendency of the writ and that the auction was conducted without waiting for the statutory redemption period of 120 days.
The counsel for the respondents argued that the seizure was valid as part of efforts to prevent smuggling across the Indo-Nepal border and that the adjudication order was proper because the petitioner failed to appear at personal hearings and did not redeem the goods.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Ashok Kumar Pandey observed that seizure memos without recording reasons have been consistently quashed by the Court in earlier cases. It explained that the requirement of “reason to believe” under Section 110 is a sine qua non for a valid seizure.
The court pointed out that the seizure in this case was carried out by an ASI, who lacked the competence under law to exercise such powers. The court further observed that the confiscation order was passed hastily while the writ petition was pending, and the subsequent auction of wheat within 29 days of dispatching the confiscation order was in violation of Section 125(3) of the Customs Act.
The court held that both the seizure memo and the confiscation order were unsustainable in law. It directed the authorities to pay the petitioner the full value of the wheat, ₹46,200, with 6% interest from the date of seizure until payment, along with ₹5,000 towards litigation costs, within six weeks. The writ petition was accordingly allowed.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
