Patna High Court
Ashish Sharma vs The Union Of India on 26 June, 2025
Author: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
Bench: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Ashok Kumar Pandey
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.768 of 2021
======================================================
Ashish Sharma Son of Sri Rajendra Prasad Sharma Resident of 56, Gupta
Colony, P.P. Nagar, P.S.- Transport Nagar, District Meeruth, Uttar Pradesh.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union of India through the Chief Commissioner of Customs Central
Revenue Building, Birchand Patel Path, Patna, Bihar.
2. The Commissioner, Customs, (Preventive) Central Revenue Building,
Birchand Patel Path, Patna, Bihar.
3. The Additional Commissioner cum Adjudicating Authority, Office of the
Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), 5th Floor, Central Revenue
Building, Birchand Patel Path, Patna, Bihar.
4. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Division Farbishganj,
Bihar.
5. The Inspector cum Seizing Officer, Customs (Preventive) Division
Farbishganj, Bihar.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Dr. K.N. Singh, ASG
Mr. Anshuman Singh, Sr.SC
Mr. Shivaditya Dhani Sinha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
Date : 26-06-2025
Heard learned for the petitioner and learned Additional
Solicitor General assisted by learned Senior Standing Counsel for
the Department of Customs.
2. This writ application has been filed seeking the
following reliefs :-
"(i) Quashing of the Seizure Memo dated
22.01.2020
(Annexure 3) whereby the Truck
Patna High Court CWJC No.768 of 2021 dt.26-06-2025
bearing Registration No. UP - 15DT - 4355 has
been seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act
for the alleged violation of Section 7, 11, 46 and 47
of the Customs Act, 1962 and Notification No. 9/96
issued under Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962
read with Section 3(2) of the Foreign Trade
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1992;
(ii) Provision Release of the Seized Truck bearing
Registration No. UP - 15DT - 4355 during the
pendency of the instant Writ application in terms of
the application dated 06.02.2020, 10.08.2020,
15.09.2020 and 21.12.2020 (Annexure 4 Series, 6, 9
and 11) pending before the compete authority;
(iii) Restraining the Respondents, from taking any
coercive action against the petitioner in connection
with the and in consequence of the Seizure dated
22.01.2020 (Annexure 3).
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
case of the petitioner would be covered by the judgment of this
Court in the case of M/s Ashoke Das and Another versus Union
of India and Others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Pat 1553.
The Seizure Memo dated 22.01.2020 as contained in Annexure '3'
to the writ application has been drawn in identical manner as has
been found by this Court in the case of M/s Ashoke Das (supra).
4. Attention of this Court has been drawn towards the
Seizure Memo (Annexure '3') in which in the column where
reason for seizure/detention of goods is required to be filled up, the
Seizing Officer has only mentioned as under:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.768 of 2021 dt.26-06-2025
"Violation of Sections 7, 11, 46 & 47 of Customs
Act, 1962 and violation of Notification No. 9/96
(NT) Cus dated 22.1.96 issued under Section 110 of
the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3(2) of
Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act,
1992 and Notification order etc. issued there under."
5. On earlier occasion, when the writ application was
mentioned for consideration, this Court passed the following
order:-
Order dated 25.04.2025
"After this Court delivered its judgment in CWJC
No. 17756 of 2024 and CWJC No. 17758 of 2024
today, learned counsel for the petitioners has
mentioned these matters saying that these writ
applications would be covered by the judgment of
this Court in case of M/s Ashoke Das and Another
Vs. Union of India and Others (CWJC No. 4918
of 2021) reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Pat 1553
and also by the judgment of this Court delivered
today in the aforementioned writ applications.
2. Mr. Anshuman Singh, learned Senior Standing
Counsel for the Department of Customs submits that
he would seek instructions. Counter affidavits have
already been filed in these writ applications.
3. Learned counsel for the parties have requested
this Court to fix a date.
4. List all these cases on 05th May, 2025 within top
ten cases for consideration."
6. Today, when the writ application is taken up for
consideration, learned ASG and learned Sr. Standing Counsel for
Patna High Court CWJC No.768 of 2021 dt.26-06-2025
the Department has informed that the judgment of this Court in the
case of M/s Ashoke Das (supra) has been acted upon by the
Department, to their information no special leave petition to appeal
has been filed challenging the judgment of this Court in the case of
M/s Ashoke Das (supra).
7. In the case of M/s Ashoke Das (supra), this Court has
in the operative part of the judgment held as under:-
"41. It is apparent from a bare reading of the order of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court that it was passed after granting
leave against the Division Bench judgments of this Court
and the effect of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
may be clearly seen. The principle of 'merger' will apply.
Despite quashing of the seizure memo, it cannot be said
that the appellants cannot investigate and proceed in
accordance with law under the provisions of the Act of
1962.
42. In the light of the aforementioned discussions, when
we examine the seizure memo (Annexure P1), it is found
that the Seizing Officer has not complied with the
mandate of sub-section (1) of Section 110 of the Act of
1962. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has, in Worldline
Tradex Private Limited (supra) categorically held that
the power of seizure under Section 110 of the Act has to
obviously be exercised for valid reasons. The proper
officer has to record his reasons to believe that the goods
that he proposes to seize are liable to confiscation. The
said reasons for exercise of the power have to be
recorded prior to the seizure. The subsequent instruction
issued by the Department clearly says that in addition to
panchnama reason to believe should be indicated in the
seizure memo/order.
43. We find from the records that in the present case,
apart from the seizure list, there is no other order of the
Seizing Officer showing his reason to believe. The
learned co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Assam Supari Traders (supra) and Krishna Kali
Traders (supra) has held that mere mentioning of the
sections of the Act of 1962 in the seizure memo would
not be sufficient in absence of material information
relating to 'reason to believe.' We are in agreement with
the said view of the learned co-ordinate Bench. We have
Patna High Court CWJC No.768 of 2021 dt.26-06-2025
been told at the Bar that Assam Supari Traders (supra)
and Krishna Kali Traders (supra) have attained finality
as no challenge to these judgments have been taken to the
Hon'ble Supreme Court.
44. In result, the seizure memo (Annexure P1) is
quashed. So far as the notice to show cause as contained
in Annexure P7 to the writ petition is concerned, we
refrain from interfering with the show cause notice. We
have already recorded the order of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court hereinabove in which it has been held that
quashing of the seizure memo does not mean the
appellants cannot investigate and proceed in accordance
with law under the provisions of the Act of 1962. The
petitioner, if so advised, may submit his reply to the show
cause notice. It is open to the petitioner to file a reply to
the show cause notice within six weeks from today
whereafter the adjudicating officer shall proceed to pass
appropriate order under the provisions of the Act of 1962.
45. All questions with regard to the issuance of show
cause notice and impact of quashing of the seizure memo
(Annexure P1) shall remain open."
8. Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that a similar order may be passed in this case as the
issues involved in the present writ application are fully covered by
the judgment of this Court in the case of M/s Ashoke Das (supra)
which in turn has taken into consideration the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and learned Co-ordinate Bench on the
issues which had fallen for consideration.
9. In view of the stand of the parties recorded
hereinabove, this writ application is being disposed of in similar
terms as has been done by this Court in the case of M/s Ashoke
Das (supra).
Patna High Court CWJC No.768 of 2021 dt.26-06-2025
10. The Seizure Memo as contained in Annexure '3' is
quashed, however, in terms of the observations in paragraphs '44'
and '45' in the case of M/s Ashoke Das (supra), it is once again
held that quashing of Seizure Memo would not mean that the
Department cannot investigate and proceed in accordance with law
under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. Other observations
shall also apply in the present case.
11. This writ application stands disposed of.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
( Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
SUSHMA2/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 30.06.2025
Transmission Date
