Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1037 (PAT)

Yogendra Prasad v. Union Of India

2004-09-27

AFTAB ALAM

body2004
Judgment 1. This writ petition seeks to challenge the seizure of Polythene carry-bags by the respondent Customs officials under seizure-memo, dated 11.9.2003 (Annexure-9). From the seizure memo it appears that the seizure was made on 11.9.2003 at 5.45 hours at Sarotar on Dharaghora-Khajuria road. The Polythene carry-bags were in two bundles (9 bags in one and 5 bags in the other) with the total Nt. Wt being 290 Kgs and their value, according to the seizure memo, was Rs. 12, 700/-. In the memo the reason for the seizure was stated as follows: "Violation of GIMF Notification No. 9.Cus/96 dated 22.1.1996 issued under section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with section 3 of the FT (D&R) Act, 1992". 2. The petitioner claims ownership of the seized goods and makes the plea that the seizure was illegal and without jurisdiction and consequently, any resultant confiscation proceeding would also be equally without jurisdiction. 3. The petitioner works a small scale industrial unit under the name and style of M/s Sharda Plastic Industries at Raxaul in the district of Champaran. The unit is engaged in manufacture of Polythene bags and other plastic goods that are excisable commodities. The unit also holds a certificate of import and export issued by the Licensing authority, the Dy. Director General of Foreign Trade, Patna. Under the import and export licence the petitioner imports polythene carry-bags and other plastic materials manufactured in Nepal from different industrial units situate there. According to the petitioner, the imports are always made on payment of Dhansar to Nepal Customs and on the basis of Bills of Entry on payment of customs duty at Land Customs Stations in India through which the goods are imported. The goods thus imported are either sold directly at the office of the unit M/s Sharda Plastic Industries at Raxaul or those are sold through agents at different places in the country. 4. Coming to the present consignment it. is stated that on 30.7.2003 the petitioner entered into an agreement to purchase Polythene carry-bags weighing 7000 Kgs @ Rs. 49/- per Kg from M/s Damodar Plastics Industries P. Limited, Tanki Sinwari, Morang in Nepal. Pursuant to the contract M/s Damodar Plastic Industries despatched 7000 Kgs Polythene bags to the petitioner by truck under invoice no. 008/2003, dated 30.7.2003 through Jogbani Land Customs Station. 49/- per Kg from M/s Damodar Plastics Industries P. Limited, Tanki Sinwari, Morang in Nepal. Pursuant to the contract M/s Damodar Plastic Industries despatched 7000 Kgs Polythene bags to the petitioner by truck under invoice no. 008/2003, dated 30.7.2003 through Jogbani Land Customs Station. The consignment was duly accompanied with (i) an invoice, (ii) the packing list, (iii) the Certificate of Origin, (4) the Certificate of Export and other relevant documents. On 6.8.2003, on payment of customs duty on the basis of Bill of Entry No. 6891, dated 6.8.2003 the consignment was permitted to be imported into India through L.S. Jogbani by Sahara Roadways under consignment note no. 372, dated 6.8.2003. On 10.9.2003, 14 bags (in two bundles and weighing 290 kgs). out of the above described consignment, were sent by the petitioner to a certain Lalan Prasad at Siwan through the driver of a bus of Atul Bus Service bearing registration no. BR-22A-9521 under challan-cum- invoice no. 372, dated 10.9.2003. 5. On way to Siwan the bus was checked by the customs officials on 11.9.2003 and, according to the case of the petitioner, though the bus driver produced the challan as well as the Bill of Entry the officials seized the bundles containing the Polythene carry-bags in the highly unreasonable and arbitrary manner. 6. On behalf of the petitioner it is alleged that the customs officials were bent upon harassing him; his goods, duly imported into the country on payment of customs duties and after observing all the legal formalities, were frequently seized and subjected to long-drawn confiscation proceedings. In support of the allegation counsel for the petitioner produced an earlier decision of this court, dated 20.2.2001 in Cr.W.J.C. No. 464 of 2000 (Anatilal Prasad V/s. Union of India & Ors.) and another analogous case. In that case the Polythene carry-bags sold by the petitioner unit to two other persons had been similarly seized by the customs officials and challenging the seizure the two buyers from the petitioner had come to this court. In the decision in that case there is a reference to some earlier seizures in which the resultant confiscation proceedings had failed. In the case of Anatilal Prasad the seizure was held to be bad, illegal and without jurisdiction. In the decision in that case there is a reference to some earlier seizures in which the resultant confiscation proceedings had failed. In the case of Anatilal Prasad the seizure was held to be bad, illegal and without jurisdiction. But the facts of an earlier case can not form the basis to assail a subsequent seizure; so far as the validity of the impugned seizure is concerned it can only be judged on the basis of undisputed facts and not on the basis of the allegations made by the petitioner. This court would, therefore, discount the assertion being made by the petitioner that at the time of inspection by the customs officials, apart from the challan, a copy of the Bill of Entry too was produced by the driver of the bus. 7. The circumstances under which and the manner in which the seizure was made, as per the customs officials is stated in the notice issued to the petitioner on March 3/4, 2004. In paragraphs 2 and 3 of the notice it is stated as follows: "2. The brief facts of the case is that on 11.9.2003 at about 5.45 hrs at Sarotar, Dhangarha, Khajuria Road, Motihari during the course of routine chekina of the Bus No. BR-29P-9521. 14 Bags weighing 290 Kgs (Net Weight) Polythene carrying Bags valued at Rs. 12,700/- (Rupees Twelve thousand seven hundred) only were found in the Dikki of aforesaid Bus and on being challenged, the Driver and Khalashi of the said bus stated that they were authorised by M/s Sharda Plastic Industries. Raxaul to carry these goods for its delivery at Siwan to Shri Lallan Prasad of Siwan and the owner of M/s Sharda Plastic Industries. Raxaul had given them paper of importation from Nepal through Jogbani LCS and they had been directed to hand over the said papers to the Customs Officer for not effecting seizure. M/s. Sharda Plastic Industries, Raxaul had sold these 14 bags of Nepalese origin plastic carrying bags to Shri Lallan Prasad of Siwan vide delivery invoice cum challan no. 372 dated 11.9.2003 for 12,700/- and goods have been imported into India from Nepal. They have also stated that Shri Yogendra Prasad of M/s. Sharda Plastic Industries, Raxaul had been engaged in sending/transporting these polythene carry bags in almost all buses going to Siwan without accompanying passengers/purchaser/seller. 372 dated 11.9.2003 for 12,700/- and goods have been imported into India from Nepal. They have also stated that Shri Yogendra Prasad of M/s. Sharda Plastic Industries, Raxaul had been engaged in sending/transporting these polythene carry bags in almost all buses going to Siwan without accompanying passengers/purchaser/seller. They also stated that they have been instructed to show these invoices to Customs and not allow them in effecting of seizure off the said goods. They were also stated that Shri Yogendra Prasad have paid Rs. 140/- as fare/transportation charge for transportation of these bags from Raxaul to Siwan by this bus. "3. That on examination of the said packets of bags, containing HDPE Shopping bags, it appeared that they were without identification mark and name of importers etc. were not there on these packets, so it does not appears (sic) to be legally imported one and does not have any co-relation with those imported bags or it is not identifiable that they are imported one. Hence, these bags were seized under Section 110 of Customs act, 1962 and taken into Customs Custody under proper Panchanama and inventory." (emphasis added) Thus the facts and circumstances leading to the seizure, as stated in the show cause issued by the customs authorities may be enumerated as follows: (i) The two bundles of polythene carrybags that were seized by the officials were detected in a routine checking of the bus. There was no special alert or intelligence report in regard to the seized goods. (ii) There was no attempt to hide or conceal the bundles. The bundles were found in the luggage compartment of the bus and on being asked the driver and the Khalasi plainly said that those were given by the petitioner for being delivered to a certain Lallan Prasad at Siwan to whom the Polythene carry-bags were sold vide delivery invoice challan no. 372, dated 11.9.2003 for Rs. 12,700/-. The consignor (that is, the petitioner) had given them paper of import from Nepal through Jogbani LCS and they had been directed to hand over the said papers to the customs officers at the time of checking. The customs officers were further told that the petitioner used to send/transport those polythene carry-bags in almost all buses going to Siwan by simply handing them over to the bus staff on payment of fare. For this consignment he has paid Rs. 140/- as fare. The customs officers were further told that the petitioner used to send/transport those polythene carry-bags in almost all buses going to Siwan by simply handing them over to the bus staff on payment of fare. For this consignment he has paid Rs. 140/- as fare. (iii) The bus staff produced the challan under which the seized consignment was sold to Lallan Prasad of Siwan. A photostat copy of the challan is annexure 8 to the writ petition. The customs officials, however, were not shown a copy of the bill of entry under which the consignment was imported into this country. (iv) The bundles did not appear to be legally imported because on examination by the customs officials those were found to be without any identification mark and name of importer. (v) The customs officials came to the reasonable belief that the plastic carrybags valued at Rs. 12,700/- were brought into India in contravention of G.O.I. notification no. 9/96Cus., dated 22.1.1996 issued under section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with section 3 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992. 8. Mr. Ganpati Trivedi, counsel appearing for the petitioner strongly assailed the seizure on admitted facts and circumstances, as enumerated above. Learned counsel submitted that section 110 of the Customs Act empowered the proper officer to seize the goods provided he had reason to believe that the goods were liable to be confiscated under the Act. He further submitted that it was well established by judicial pronouncements that the expression "reason to believe" indicated a mental state far more well-founded and substantial than suspicion, how-so-ever strong and it also did not mean purely a subjective satisfaction on the part of the authority (Narayanappa V/s. I.T. Commissioner, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 523: Pratap Singh V/s. Director of Enforcement FER Act, 1985 S.C. 1989: Ganga Saran & Sons V/s. I.T. Officer, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 1363). 9. Mr. Trivedi submitted that non-production of the bill of entry, as claimed by the officers effecting seizure might have given rise to the suspicion that the goods were imported illegally without payment of customs duty. But that fact could be verified easily without subjecting the goods to seizure. 9. Mr. Trivedi submitted that non-production of the bill of entry, as claimed by the officers effecting seizure might have given rise to the suspicion that the goods were imported illegally without payment of customs duty. But that fact could be verified easily without subjecting the goods to seizure. He pointed out that in the printed challan under which the two bundles of polythene bags were sold to the party at Siwan and which was admittedly produced before the officers had printed on it, the name and detailed address of the petitioners unit in large, block letters. The officers could, therefore, simply detain the consignment and ask the petitioner to produce the bill of entry which the petitioner would have produced before them in no time. 10. Mr. Trivedi contended that nonproduction of the bill of entry by the bus staff could never give rise to the suspicion, much less a reasonable belief that the plastic carry-bags were imported in violation of GIMS Notification no. 9/Cus. 96, dated 22.1.1996 issued under section 11 of the Customs Act. The notification referred to in the seizure memo has been brought on record as Annexure-C to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent authorities. It prohibits the import from Nepal to India all goods which have been exported to Nepal from a country other than India. The notification prohibits import to India of goods that in common parlance are called goods of third country origin. The notification was issued under section 11 of the Customs Act. 11. Mr. Trivedi further submitted that in the seizure-memo the reference to section 3 of the FT (D&R) Act, 1992 was quite mis-conceived. He pointed out that an order issued under sub section (2) of Section 3 of the FT (D&R) Act, for its sustenance and enforcibility needed the aid and assistance of section 11 of the Customs Act as provided in section 3(3) of the Former Act, but not vice-versa. The notification referred to in the seizure-memo was issued under section 11 of the Customs Act and it was, therefore, enforcible independently and without any aid or assistance from the provisions of section 3 of the FT (D&R) Act. In the seizure-memo any reference to section 3 FT (D&R) Act was based on an incorrect understanding of the law. The notification referred to in the seizure-memo was issued under section 11 of the Customs Act and it was, therefore, enforcible independently and without any aid or assistance from the provisions of section 3 of the FT (D&R) Act. In the seizure-memo any reference to section 3 FT (D&R) Act was based on an incorrect understanding of the law. Since the notification was issued under section 11, the provisions of the Customs Act alone were relevant for the purpose of this case. 12. The moot question, therefore, is whether there was any material before the officers effecting seizure to give rise to a reasonable belief that the plastic bags contained in the two bundles were of third country origin. In other words, the plastic bags were not manufactured in Nepal itself but were brought there from a third country. 13. Mr. Trivedi strongly argued that simply on account of non-production of the bill of entry it was impossible for anyone to come to a reasonable belief that the goods were of third country origin. He reiterated that non-production of the bill of entry might have given rise to the suspicion, or even to the belief, that the goods were brought into India without payment of proper customs duty, but, no reasonable person could have come to the belief that those polythene bags were brought to Nepal, before their import to India, from a third country. 14. Mr. Trivedi concluded by submitting that since there was no material before the officers effecting the seizure to come to the reasonable belief that the polythene bags in the two bundles were of third country origin, the impugned seizure was made for a reason that was nonest in the eyes of law. The seizure was, therefore, quite illegal and without jurisdiction. In support of his submission he relied upon two division bench decisions of this court, one (unreported) being judgment and order dated 5.12.1973 in C.W.J.C. No. 890 of 1973 (M/s Rara Brothers & Ors. V/s. M.L. Dey & Ors.) and the other in Angou Golmei V/s. Union of India and Ors. 1994(1) P.L.J.R. 800. 15. Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Senior S.C.C.G. submitted that after seizure of the polythene bags a proceeding for their confiscation under section 111 of the Act was initiated in which a show cause notice was given to the petitioner and the petitioner had also filed his reply to the notice. 1994(1) P.L.J.R. 800. 15. Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Senior S.C.C.G. submitted that after seizure of the polythene bags a proceeding for their confiscation under section 111 of the Act was initiated in which a show cause notice was given to the petitioner and the petitioner had also filed his reply to the notice. (Mr. Trivedi disputed the statement and said that though a show cause notice was given to the petitioner, he had not filed any reply to it and the annexure being referred to as the petitioners reply to the notice was in fact his reply to an earlier show cause in connection with some other seizure). Mr. Ravi Ranjan submitted that since a confiscation proceeding was already pending, the petitioner could appear before the departmental authority and place all the facts before him who would pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. 16. In support of his submission that it would not be appropriate for this court to interfere with the seizure since it had already given rise to a confiscation proceeding, he relied upon a decision of this court in Bikaner-Assam Road Lines India Limited and Ors. V/s. Union of India and Ors., 2000(1) PLJR 135 . 17. Mr. Ravi Ranjan further submitted that the existence of a "reasonable belief" in the mind of the officer effecting seizure was not justifiable and this court could not substitute its own view in place of the opinion formed by the officer effecting seizure. In support of the submission he reiied upon a Supreme Court decision in State of Gujrat V/s. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal & Anr., AIR 1987 SC 1321 . 18. He further submitted that samples from the seized polythene bags were sent for laboratory test and the test-memo, showed that the thickness (in microne) of the seized polythene bags varied between 7.5 to 10 micrones. He then invited my attention to the rules called the Re-cycled Plastic Manufacture & Usage Rules, 1999 framed under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and published in the official gazette on 2.9.1999. These rules prohibit the use of plastic carry-bags of thickness less than 20 micrones. On the basis of the test report he submitted that the seized consignment was also liable to confiscation under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act read with the relevant provisions of the Customs Act. 19. These rules prohibit the use of plastic carry-bags of thickness less than 20 micrones. On the basis of the test report he submitted that the seized consignment was also liable to confiscation under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act read with the relevant provisions of the Customs Act. 19. On a careful consideration of the submissions made on behalf of the parties and on going through the materials on record, I am unable to accept the submissions advanced on behalf of the respondent authorities. As regards the objection to the maintainability of the writ petition in view of the pendency of the confiscation proceeding, it is well settled that in order to give rise to a legal and valid confiscation proceeding the seizure must itself be valid and legal. A confiscation proceeding arising from a seizure held to be illegal and without jurisdiction cannot be sustained nor can, in such a case, an objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition be raised effectively. This issue was considered in detail and was answered against the respondent authorities in the earlier judgment of this court, in M/s. Rara Brothers and others (supra). In that case the division bench after examining several authorities on the point came to find and hold as follows: "I need not discuss this point any further because if the jurisdiction itself is challenged, the persons challenging the jurisdiction was obviously denying the applicability of the provisions of the Act under which the jurisdiction had been taken by the respondents. In such a case alternative remedies provided under the Act will be no remedy at all." 20. Further, the judgment held and directed as follows: "In my opinion, therefore, the seizure of the goods is wholly illegal. Having regard to the above position all proceedings consequent upon the seizure of the goods are void and illegal. The respondents are, therefore, directed to forthwith return the goods mentioned in annexures 6/2 and 6/3 of this writ petition to the petitioners." (emphasis added) 21. As regards the submission of the Senior S.C., C.G. based on the decision in Bikaner-Assam Road Lines India Limited (supra), in that case the seized goods were 220 bags of betal nuts (supari) of third country origin that were allegedly brought into India from Nepal. As regards the submission of the Senior S.C., C.G. based on the decision in Bikaner-Assam Road Lines India Limited (supra), in that case the seized goods were 220 bags of betal nuts (supari) of third country origin that were allegedly brought into India from Nepal. In that decision this court did not find or hold that the seizure was illegal or without jurisdiction and it was for that the seizure and the resultant confiscation proceeding were not interfered with and the parties claiming ownership of the seized betal nuts were directed to the cometent authority under the Act. But it is significant to note that even in that decision this court directed for the release of the truck without referring its owner to the confiscation proceeding that was pending with regard to the truck as well. 22. Coming now to the second point regarding the justiciability of the reasonable belief formed by the officer effecting seizure, on this issue the Senior S.C., C.G. relied upon the Supreme Court decision in Mohanlal Jitamalji (supra). That reported case is entirely different from the facts of the case in hand. In the case before the Supreme Court the seized article was a waistchain (Kandora), weighing 820 grams and made of pure gold. It was coated with mercury so as to give an appearance of being made of silver. The court observed that it was obviously a deceitful device to evade the law. The Supreme Court took note of three circumstances on the basis of which the Customs Officer entertained the reasonable belief that the article was a smuggled one viz. "(1) On the basis of the prior information he was alert and was on the look out, watching the movements of respondent no. 1. "(2) The chain which had adorned the waistline of respondent no. 1 was coated with mercury so as to give an appearance of being made of silver. "(3) As per the opinion of the goldsmith it was made of pure gold." It was on that basis that the Supreme Court made the observation that: "Whether or not official concerned had seized the article in the reasonable belief that the goods were smuggled goods is not a question on which the court can sit in appeal. "(3) As per the opinion of the goldsmith it was made of pure gold." It was on that basis that the Supreme Court made the observation that: "Whether or not official concerned had seized the article in the reasonable belief that the goods were smuggled goods is not a question on which the court can sit in appeal. If prima facie there are grounds to justify the belief the courts have to accept the officers belief regardless of the fact whether the court of its own might or might not have entertained the same belief. Whether or not the officer concerned had entertained reasonable belief under the circumstances is not a matter which can be placed under legal microscope, with an overindulgent eye which sees no evil anywhere within the range of its eye sight." (emphasis added) 23. The proposition is indisputable. A court cannot go into the question of sufficiency of materials for giving rise to a reasonable belief or if two views are possible on the same materials, the court cannot substitute its own view for the view taken by the concerned officer. But a case where it is shown that there was absolutely no material on the basis of which a person could come to a reasonable belief that the goods were liable to confiscation is quite different. The case in hand is plainly a case of no material. As noted above, it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that mere non-production of the bill of entry cannot give rise to a reasonable belief that polythene bags were not manufactured in Nepal and were of third country origin. I find substance and force in the submission made on behalf of the petitioner and I hold that there was no material at the time of the impugned seizure to arrive at a reasonable belief that the goods were brought into India in violation of the notification in question and were, therefore, liable for confiscation. 24. On this point the decision in Angou Golmei (supra) relied upon by the petitioner is more to the point. In paras 21 and 23 of that decision, it was observed and held as follows: "21. The expression reasonable belief or reason to believe occurs in several statutes. 24. On this point the decision in Angou Golmei (supra) relied upon by the petitioner is more to the point. In paras 21 and 23 of that decision, it was observed and held as follows: "21. The expression reasonable belief or reason to believe occurs in several statutes. Reference may be made to section 147 (a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; section 178A of the Sea Customs Act, 1978; section 66 of Gold (Control) Act, 1968 and so on. In Calcutta Discount Col. Ltd. V/s. Income Tax Officer (AIR 1961 Supreme Court 372), a case under section 34 of the Income Tax Act, 1922 corresponding to section 147(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Apex Court held: "The expression reasons to believe postulates belief and the existence of reason for that belief. The belief must be held in good faith; it cannot be merely a pretence. The expression does not (sic) purely subjective satisfaction of the Income Tax Officer." "In Sheonath Singh V/s. Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Calcutta (AIR 1971 Supreme Court 2451) it was held that the words "reason to believe" suggest that the belief must be of an honest and reasonable person based upon reasonable grounds and the officer may act on direct or circumstantial evidence but not on mere suspicion, gossip or rumour. It was further held that if the officer concerned acts on material which is irrelevant then he acts without jurisdiction." "23. There can be no doubt that while considering the question as to whether the officer had reason to believe that the goods are contraband and liable to confiscation and seizure the court cannot sit as an appellate authority nor can it go into the sufficiency of reasons for holding the belief. In the instant case, trade opinions of the local traders having been abandoned, the visual inspection and smell by Sri K.R.C. Pillai remain as the basis of seizure besides the information received from the Assistant Security Commissioner, R.P.F. It may be stated that although in the grounds of seizure, enumerated in the counter affidavit, certain cuttings in paper etc. are also mentioned, they were not referred to during the course of hearing. are also mentioned, they were not referred to during the course of hearing. The Collector of Custom (Prev.) Patna, in his letter dated 8th June 1993 (supra) has said "the basic problem is that once a particular spice is successfully smuggled and introduced in the local market its identification as a foreign product becomes difficult." It is, therefore, doubtful that the seized goods could be identified as of foreign origin on the basis of visual inspection and smell. The Assistant Commissioner, R.P.F. had merely informed about movement of articles. The seizure thus really rests not on the basis of identification of the goods as being of foreign original but on the basis of a general belief that the spices are not grown in the North-Eastern States and, therefore, any spice coming from that region must be said to be smuggled. Thus, it is not a case where the court should go by the experience and expertise of Custom Officials. The reasons for formation of belief having been spelt out it is open to the court to consider whether the reasons exist or not. And the test would be whether a reasonable, prudent person on the basis of materials relied upon could hold the same belief. Sufficiency of reasons or grounds is not justiable but the existence of the reasons and the grounds certainly is." 25. Coming now to the third point raised by Senior S.C.C.G. regarding the seized polythene carry-bags being liable for confiscation for the reason that the thickness of those bags was under 20 micrones, the submission is not acceptable for more reasons than one. 26. It was strongly argued on behalf of the petitioner that samples were admittedly not made at the time of seizure of the two bundles and in any event no sample from the seized polythene bags was given to the petitioner. Mr. Trivedi also pointed out that from the test-memo itself it appeared that the polythene carry-bags that were sent for testing were seized from the premises of Sharda Plastic Industries on 15.1.2004/22.1.2004. 27. Mr. Trivedi also pointed out that from the test-memo itself it appeared that the polythene carry-bags that were sent for testing were seized from the premises of Sharda Plastic Industries on 15.1.2004/22.1.2004. 27. Senior S.C.C.G. sought to explain that after the seizure of the two bundles from the bus a raid was made at the premises of the petitioner unit and from there samples were taken from the imported consignment of which the seized goods were admittedly a part and the polythene carry-bags from the larger consignment had failed the test of thickness. 28. It is not needed to go into the question regarding the propriety of the way in which samples were sent for testing because it is well settled that a seizure cannot be justified on the basis of facts subsequently coming to light. Section 110 of the Customs Act is very clear. It provides, in so far relevant for the present, as follows: "If the proper officer has reason to believe that any goods are liable to confiscation under this Act, he may seize such goods." The belief that the goods are liable to confiscation is to be formed, therefore, on the basis of reasons available at the time of seizure. In this case the officer, effecting seizure professed to have the reasonable belief that the polythene carry-bags were brought into India in violation of the notification referred to in the seizure memo. At the time of seizure the issue of thickness of the bags was nowhere in his mind. 29 On the basis of the discussions made above, the court comes to find and hold that the seizure of the polythene carrybags under memo, dated 11.9.2003 was bad and illegal. The seizure and the resultant confiscation proceeding are accordingly set aside and the respondent authorities are directed to return the seized consignment to the petitioner without any delay. 30. In the result, this writ petition is allowed but with no order as to costs.