Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s. Narayan Power Solutions, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging the sealing of its office premises by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (respondent no.2) under Section 105 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner's office at Plot No. W-255(A), TTC Industrial Area, Rabale MIDC, Navi Mumbai was sealed without notice during an investigation into transactions involving S.T. Electricals, a principal importer/supplier. The petitioner argued that the Customs officer lacked jurisdiction to seal the premises, as Section 105 only confers power to search, not to seal. The petitioner also contended that it had not directly purchased goods from S.T. Electricals; rather, the goods passed through intermediaries Pacific and M/s. Mayur Enterprises. The petitioner expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation but objected to a fishing search beyond the specific transactions. The respondents, represented by Mr. Kantharia, could not justify the sealing under Section 105 but argued that the petitioner was not cooperating, leading to the sealing. The court, after hearing both sides, held that the power to search does not include the power to seal, as sealing is a drastic power requiring express statutory authority. The court noted that the respondents failed to cite any provision conferring such power. Accordingly, the court directed the respondents to unseal the premises within 24 hours and permitted them to conduct a search confined to documents related to transactions with S.T. Electricals, with the petitioner's cooperation. The court also granted liberty to the petitioner to file an affidavit and to the respondents to file a reply, listing the matter for further hearing on 1 August 2023.
Headnote
A) Customs Law - Search and Seizure - Power to Seal - Section 105 of the Customs Act, 1962 - The court considered whether the Assistant Commissioner of Customs had authority to seal the petitioner's office premises under Section 105 of the Customs Act, 1962. The court held that the power to search does not include the power to seal, as sealing is a drastic power requiring express statutory authority, which is absent in Section 105. The court directed unsealing of the premises and allowed the respondents to conduct a search confined to documents related to transactions with S.T. Electricals. (Paras 2-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the power to search under Section 105 of the Customs Act, 1962 includes the power to seal the premises without notice
Final Decision
The court directed the respondents to unseal the petitioner's office premises within 24 hours. The respondents are permitted to conduct a search of the premises confined to documents relating to transactions with S.T. Electricals, with the petitioner's cooperation. The petitioner is at liberty to file an affidavit, and the respondents may file a reply. The matter is listed for further hearing on 1 August 2023.
Law Points
- Power to search does not include power to seal
- Sealing requires express statutory authority
- Section 105 Customs Act 1962 does not confer power to seal
- Fishing search not permissible
