ORDER : Ujjal Bhuyan, J. 1. Heard Mr. C.V. Narasimham, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Surya Karan Reddy, learned Additional Solicitor General along with Mr. N. Rajeshwar Rao, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 7. 2. The matter was heard on February 17, 2022 on the interim prayer. 3. This writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs, viz.: "(i) directing respondent No. 1 to release the goods valued at Rs. 8,50,47,384 seized illegally, arbitrarily, without jurisdiction, without authority of law and against principles of natural justice and in violation of articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and provisions of Customs Act, 1962, notifications thereof, and provisions of Foreign Trade Policy and allow the goods to be further exported; (ii) quashing the summons dated January 17, 2022 issued by respondent No. 1 and further directing respondent Nos. 1 and 2 not to conduct further investigation against the petitioner as the same was initiated without jurisdiction and without authority of law; and (iii) directing respondent No. 1 to allow respondent Nos. 5 and 6/banks to defreeze the bank account of the petitioner and pass such further orders in the interest of justice." 4. Before we deal with the above three prayers made, we may mention that at the pre-admission stage, respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 7 have filed counter-affidavit to which the petitioner has filed reply-affidavit. 5. Regarding prayer No. 3, stand taken in the counter-affidavit is that goods and services tax (GST) Commissioner ate at Noida had issued letters to the banks of the petitioner, being respondent Nos. 5 and 6, to attach the accounts of the petitioner, as it is alleged that the petitioner is not co-operating with the investigation carried out by the GST Commissioner ate, Noida. 6. Regarding attachment of the bank account of the petitioner, we find that under section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (briefly, "the CGST Act" hereinafter), more particularly, under sub-section (1) thereof, Commissioner of GST has the power to provisionally attach bank account of a taxable person. 6. Regarding attachment of the bank account of the petitioner, we find that under section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (briefly, "the CGST Act" hereinafter), more particularly, under sub-section (1) thereof, Commissioner of GST has the power to provisionally attach bank account of a taxable person. As per sub-section, (1), where during the pendency of any proceedings under section 61 or section 63 or section 64 or section 67 or section 73 or section 74 of the CGST Act, the Commissioner is of the opinion that for the purpose of protecting the interest of Government revenue, it is necessary to do so, he may, by order in writing, attach provisionally any property including batik account belonging to a taxable person in such manner as may be prescribed. Sub-section (2), however, provides that such provisional attachment shall cease to have effect after expiry of a period of one year from the date of the order made under sub-section (1). 7. We find that pleadings regarding attachment of bank account are wholly inadequate in the writ petition. That apart, the attachment of bank account of the petitioner has been carried out by the GST Commissioner ate, Noida, who is also not a party to the present proceeding. 8. In the circumstances, we grant liberty to the petitioner either to amend the present writ petition or to file separate writ petition challenging such attachment of bank account under section 83 of the CGST Act. 9. Insofar the second prayer is concerned, we may mention that as per the counter-affidavit of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 7, export by the petitioner of the goods in question is being investigated on the ground that the goods are of inferior quality and are grossly overvalued in order to obtain higher duty drawbacks, etc., of such export. Investigation is presently on. Therefore, at this stage, question of setting aside the summons dated January 17, 2022 would not arise. 10. Moreover, in our order dated February 2, 2022, we had made it clear that an authorised officer of the petitioner should appear before respondent No. 1 in terms of the aforesaid summons; and respond to the queries of the said officer. We further directed that no coercive action should be taken by the officials of respondent No. 1 against the authorised representative of the petitioner while responding to the summons. 11. We further directed that no coercive action should be taken by the officials of respondent No. 1 against the authorised representative of the petitioner while responding to the summons. 11. We feel that the said order sufficiently protects the interest of the petitioner during the stage of investigation. 12. This brings, us to the first prayer of the petitioner, i.e., release of the exportable goods of the petitioner being detained by respondent No. 1. 13. According to the petitioner, it is a manufacturer and supplier of handcrafted leather products and miscellaneous house-hold items. It is registered as Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise (M.S.M.E.). 14. Besides having G.S.T. registration, being an importer and exporter, it has Import arid export code bearing No. AACCU5161D. 15. Upon receipt of purchase order from M/s. King Shine Global FZE, United Arab Emirates in the month of September, 2021 for supply of various hand-crafted leather products and household items, petitioner supplied the goods to the Special Economic Zone (S.E.Z.). Such supply for exports are treated as "zero-rated" supply under the Special Economic Zone Act, 2005 and the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (briefly) "the I.G.S.T. Act" hereinafter). Since the supply was made to respondent No. 4 within the Special Economic Zone and being a zero-rated supply, there was no payment of I.G.S.T. The supplies were made by seven bills of export, all dated December 31, 2021, for a total declared value of Rs. 8,50,47,384, details of which are mentioned in paragraph No. 7 of the supporting affidavit. The bills of export were assessed by the authorised officer of the special economic zone on December 31, 2021. 16. Grievance of the petitioner is that' despite such clearance and the goods not being prohibited ones, respondent No. 1 detained the exportable goods without assigning any reason. After more than two weeks, summoris dated January 17, 2021 was issued to the petitioner. As per the summons issued under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. (briefly, "the Customs "Act', hereinafter), it was mentioned that an enquiry is being conducted in Connection with overvaluation of export goods. The petitioner was called upon to appear before respondent No. 1 to give evidence and to produce the documents mentioned in the summoris. Despite explanation provided by the petitioner, a subsequent summon was also issued on January 31, 2022. 17. The petitioner was called upon to appear before respondent No. 1 to give evidence and to produce the documents mentioned in the summoris. Despite explanation provided by the petitioner, a subsequent summon was also issued on January 31, 2022. 17. In the meanwhile, the petitioner submitted an application on January 18, 2022 for release of the goods on provisional basis. In the said application, it was mentioned that the petitioner would not claim any export incentives or JGST/ITC refund of the goods till the investigation is completed. However, there was no response. 18. Hence, the present writ petition. 19. In the counter-affidavit filed by responder Nos. 1, 2 and 7, it is stated that specific information was received from the Special Commissioner of State Tax, Ahmedabad that goods covered under twenty-one (21) invoices and warehoused with respondent No. 4 for export are mis-declared and grossly overvalued to avail export incentives fraudulently. In the course of the investigation, it was found that goods supplied by the petitioner were of inferior quality and grossly overvalued by the petitioner at Rs. 8.36 crores as against Rs. 1.76 crores, as per valuation of the Departmental Chartered Engineer. That apart, reference has been made to the investigation carried out so far to suggest that there is a concerted move to avail export benefits like duty draw-back, etc., fraudulently by overvaluing the exportable goods. In this connection, it is also stated that GST Commissioner ate at Noida has also initiated independent investigation into the business activities of the petitioner and, on the ground that there was non-cooperation by the petitioner, instructions were issued to the concerned banks for attachment of bank accounts of the petitioner. 20. Though there is no averment in the counter-affidavit by the answering respondents as to seizure of the exportable goods, a panchnama dated February 9, 2022 has been annexed to the counter-affidavit. As per the panchnama, seizure had taken place on February 9, 2022 from 17 hours onwards in the premises of respondent No. 4. The panchnama records that the exportable goods of the petitioner were found in (667) cartons those were found to be grossly overvalued at Rs. 8.36 crores as against Rs. 1.76 crores, as per valuation report of the chartered engineer. The cartons had already been examined and inventorised by the officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (D.R.I.). The panchnama records that the exportable goods of the petitioner were found in (667) cartons those were found to be grossly overvalued at Rs. 8.36 crores as against Rs. 1.76 crores, as per valuation report of the chartered engineer. The cartons had already been examined and inventorised by the officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (D.R.I.). The panchnama records that the exportable goods of the petitioner contained in the (667) cartons appear to be liable for confiscation. The customs officers then informed that they intend to seize the said goods valued at Rs. 1.76 cores, as per valuation report of the departmental chartered engineer. However, no seizure memo has been placed on record by the answering respondents. 21. In the reply-affidavit of the petitioner, it is stated that respondent No. 1 had converted the detention into seizure only on February 9, 2022. 22. At this stage, Mr. B. Narasimha Sarma, learned counsel for the answering respondents, submits that the seizure was carried out by the Hyderabad Customs Commissioner ate which is not a party to the present proceeding. 23. Be that as it may, when the writ petition was filed, the exportable goods of the petitioner were under detention at the hands of respondent No. 1, i.e., an official under the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (D.R.I.). At that stage, there was no seizure. Seizure has taken place post filing of the writ petition and during the pendency of the writ petition. 24. Section 110 of the Customs Act deals with seizure of goods, documents and things. Entire section may not be relevant for the present purpose. Only sub-section (1) along with the two provisos are relevant and those are extracted hereunder: "110. Seizure has taken place post filing of the writ petition and during the pendency of the writ petition. 24. Section 110 of the Customs Act deals with seizure of goods, documents and things. Entire section may not be relevant for the present purpose. Only sub-section (1) along with the two provisos are relevant and those are extracted hereunder: "110. Seizure of goods, documents and things.--(1) If the proper officer has reason to believe that any goods are liable to confiscation under this Act, he may seize such goods: Provided that where it is not practicable to remove, transport, store or take physical possession of the seized goods for any reason, the proper officer may give custody of the seized goods to the owner of the goods or the beneficial owner or any person holding himself out to be the importer, or any other person from whose custody such goods have been seized, on execution of an undertaking by such person that he shall not remove, part with, or otherwise deal with the goods except with the previous permission of such officer: Provided further that where it is not practicable to seize any such goods, the proper officer may serve an order on the owner of the goods or the beneficial owner or any person holding himself out to be importer, or any other person from whose custody such goods have been found, directing that such person shall not remove, part with, or otherwise deal with such goods except with the previous permission of such officer." 25. From the above, it is evident that if the proper officer has reason to believe that any goods are liable to confiscation under the Customs Act, he may seize such goods. 26. Section 113 of the Customs Act mentions the instances when exportable goods can be confiscated. 27. Before we advert to section 110A of the Customs Act which deals with provisional release of goods, etc, we may revert back to and briefly analyse the requirement of section 110 of the Customs Act. 28. Firstly, the seizure must be by the "proper officer", which is a defined expression under section 2(34) of the Customs Act. Secondly, the proper officer must have reason to believe that any goods are liable to confiscation under the Customs Act. 28. Firstly, the seizure must be by the "proper officer", which is a defined expression under section 2(34) of the Customs Act. Secondly, the proper officer must have reason to believe that any goods are liable to confiscation under the Customs Act. If and only if the above two twin conditions are satisfied, the proper officer may resort to seizure of the goods. 29. Insofar, "proper officer" is concerned, we may refer to the decision of the Supreme Court, in Canon India P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, [2021] 16 GSTR-GL 1 (SC); which says that officials of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence are not, and cannot be considered to be proper officer under the Customs Act. 30. At this stage, we may not labour much on this point, inasmuch we have been informed at the bar that the seizure has been made by the customs officials and not by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, though belatedly and post filing of the writ petition. 31. As regards the expression "reason to believe" is concerned, it is an expression of considerable import finding place in a number of statutes--fiscal, taxing, penal, etc. Insofar the Customs Act is concerned, we have seen that only if the proper officer has reason to believe that any goods are liable to confiscation then only he gets the jurisdiction to carry out the seizure. Though there are innumerable judgments on the plenitude of the expression "reason to believe", suffice it to say that the expression "reason to believe" postulates belief and existence of reasons for that belief. It does not mean purely subjective satisfaction. The expression contemplates existence of reasons on which the belief is founded and not merely a belief in the existence of reasons inducing the belief. Such a belief is not to be based on mere suspicion. It must be founded upon information. The authority may act on direct or circumstantial evidence, but not on mere suspicion, gossip or rumour. 32. In the instant case, we do not have the seizure memo on record. However, the panchnama which has been placed on record along with the counter-affidavit says that officers of the Customs Department had informed that the exportable goods of the petitioner "appear to be liable for confiscation" and, therefore, they intended to seize the said goods. 32. In the instant case, we do not have the seizure memo on record. However, the panchnama which has been placed on record along with the counter-affidavit says that officers of the Customs Department had informed that the exportable goods of the petitioner "appear to be liable for confiscation" and, therefore, they intended to seize the said goods. The expression "appear to be liable for confiscation" is clearly distinguishable from the expression "reason to believe" which we have briefly analysed above. 33. Having noticed the above, we may now advert to section 110A of the Customs Act which deals with provisional release of goods, documents and things seized (or bank account provisionally attached), pending adjudication. The same is extracted hereunder: "110A. Provisional release of goods, documents and things seized (or bank account provisionally attached) pending adjudication.--Any goods, documents or things seized (or bank account; provisionally attached) under section 110, may, pending the order of the (adjudicating authority), be released to the owner (or the bank account holder) on taking a bond from him in the proper form with such security and conditions as the (adjudicating authority) may require." 34. By the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2006, section 110A was inserted in the Customs Act with effect from July 13, 2006. From a reading of the aforesaid provision, as extracted above, it is evident that any goods, documents or things seized or bank account provisionally attached under section 110 may, pending the order of the adjudicating authority, be released to the owner or the bank account holder on taking a bond from him in the proper form with such security and conditions as the adjudicating authority may require. Thus, this provision confers a right on the owner to seek provisional release of the seized goods, while at the same time, a corresponding discretionary power is vested on the adjudicating authority who may release the seized goods upon compliance of the conditions mentioned therein. 35. Courts have held that section 110A provides a pragmatic mechanism to facilitate provisional release of seized goods, etc., to the owner, pending adjudication, but at the same time, protecting the interest of the Revenue. 36. Insofar the present case is concerned, the petitioner had already made an application on January 18, 2022 before the respondent No. 1 for provisional release of the goods. 36. Insofar the present case is concerned, the petitioner had already made an application on January 18, 2022 before the respondent No. 1 for provisional release of the goods. At the time of making the application, the exportable goods of the petitioner were yet to be seized. Though initially the goods were detained by respondent No. 1, it is now stated that the goods were subsequently seized on February 9, 2022 by the Hyderabad Customs Commissioner ate. 37. We have already noticed that the goods have been seized belatedly post filing the writ petition. Therefore, it would be wholly inequitable to relegate the petitioner to the adjudicating authority under section 110A of the Customs Act which exercise we intend to carry out at this stage of the proceeding itself. 38. From the discussions made above, a prima facie case is made out for provisional release of the goods under section 110A of the Customs Act, more particularly, considering the fact that the goods are not included in the prohibited list. 39. In the circumstances, we issue notice and direct provisional release of the exportable goods of the petitioner covered by the seven bills of export dated December 31, 2021 subject to the petitioner complying with the following conditions: (i) Let the petitioner furnish a bond for the total value of the exportable goods; (ii) The petitioner shall also furnish bank guarantee to the extent of 20 per cent, of the duty drawbacks relatable to the exportable value of the goods; and (iii) Till adjudication is concluded by the adjudicating authority following the seizure dated February 9, 2022 and subject to such adjudication, subsequent appeal, etc., the petitioner shall not claim benefits accrued to such export, such as, duty drawbacks, export incentives, GST revenue, etc. 40. Subject to furnishing of the above, the above goods of the petitioner shall be released forthwith for onward export. 41. The petitioner to serve the remaining respondent Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 through the court process as well as through personal service, and thereafter file proof of service. 42. List on March 30, 2022. 43. Delete from the caption "for judgment".