H.N.Seth, J. - (1.) Petitioners Ashok Kumar and Raj Kumar run a video cassette library under the name and style "M/s. Sufi 'Video House" at 16/86, Mall Road, Kanpur. On 6th September, 1983 Shri K.M. Jain, Inspector, Central Excise and Customs, Kanpur (Respondent NO. 2) asked them to disclose the source from which they had obtained 115 recorded video cassettes as also that of a video cassette recorder and a telephone instrument (all articles of foreign origin) found there. Ashok Kumar, Petitioner No. 1, claimed that the said articles were lawfully possessed by him and he also produced certain documents (12 receipts) in support of his claim. As in the opinion of the Inspector the documents produced by Ashok Kumar required verification, he sealed all the aforementioned articles and after handing them over to Ashok Kumar instructed him not to, as provided by the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), either part, remove, transferor otherwise deal with them till further orders. This instruction was contained in the form of a letter dated 6th September, 1983 (Annexure-12 to the Writ petition) addressed to M/s. Sun Video House, 16/86, Mall Road, Kanpur.
(2.) The two petitioners then questioned the validity of the seizure of the video cassettes, V.C.R. and telephone by means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution which they filed on 9th September, 1983. According to the petitioner, they had fully accounted for all the seized articles and that there was absolutely no relevant material on the basis of which respondent No. 2 could possibly entertain the belief that the articles seized by him had been improperly imported. The petitioners, therefore, prayed that the order contained in the communication dated 6th September, 1983 (Annexure-12 to the Writ Petition) be quashed and the respondents be directed to remove their seal and thereafter not to interfere 'With petitioners' dealing with those goods.
(3.) After the petition was filed on 9th Sept., 1983, this Court, before passing any orders on the petition, directed the learned counsel who represented the respondents, to obtain instructions and to place their version of the case before it. In the meantime the petitioners also moved an application dated 12th September, 1983 before the Superintendent, Customs, Kanpur, praying that the sealed goods be examined and released in their favour. The Preventive Officer, Customs put up a detailed report to the effect that there was sufficient reason to believe that 115 recorded video cassetttes and the telephone instrument found in petitioners' business premises were goods which were liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Act and as such they were being seized under Section 110(1) of the Act. So far as the Video Cassette Recorder (V.C.R.) was concerned, the Preventive Officer opined that its possession had been properly accounted for by the petitioners. The report of the Preventive Officer was eventually approved and vide pachanama/recovery memo dated 12th September, 1983 (Annexure-III to the supplementary counter affidavit) 115 recorded video cassettes and the telephone instrument were formally seized by the respondents. Sri Ranjit Singh, Assistant Collector (Customs), Central Excise, Kanpur, filed a counter-affidavit on behalf of respondent No. 1 on 22nd September, 1983, in paragraph 5 whereof he refuted petitioners' claim that they had got the recording done on 115 blank video cassettes after purchasing the same from various dealers of New Delhi. The reason why the custom authorities thought that the said 115 video cassettes were not connected with the receipts produced by the petitioners have been mentioned in paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit. Sri Ranjit Singh then went on the assert that petitioners' explanation that they had, after purchasing blank cassettes, got them recorded for use by the members of their library was not acceptable as the petitioners had at the time of search failed to satisfy the customs authorities about the manner in which they had got the recording done and further they had also not produced any proper authority for recording the cassettes.;