Customs Officer Need Not Record Reasons for Search Under Section 105 Customs Act: Supreme Court

The appellant, a mining proprietor, was alleged to possess a large quantity of undeclared gold. On that information the Assistant Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Raipur issued an authorization under the Gold Control Rules to search his premises, and gold, other articles, foreign currency and documents were seized (para 2). The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) dismissed his writ petition under Article 226 along with similar petitions (para 2). The other petitioners' appeals had already been decided in Durga Prasad v. H.R. Gomes, so only questions not decided there were argued (paras 2-3).

Mala fides was not shown; the High Court had rejected it on the evidence (para 4). Although the authorization did not use the words "reason to believe", its phraseology "in effect and substance meant the same thing" (para 6). Section 105 does not require reasons: "While it may be advisable, and indeed proper, for him to give reasons, the non-mention of reasons in itself does not vitiate the order" (para 7). Particulars of documents cannot be known before a search, but the goods and documents must be broadly indicated; here the specifications sufficed (para 7). Under Section 2(34) both the Board and the Collector can assign functions to an officer of customs (para 8). Section 165(1) CrPC requires recorded grounds only to enable an urgent search where a warrant cannot be obtained in time, so that condition does not apply through Section 105(2) (para 9). Section 105 is confined to goods liable to confiscation and relevant documents; the officer must prove his belief if it is questioned, must send his record to the Collector, and faces prosecution under Section 136(2) for searching without reason to believe (para 9). The High Court's finding of reasonable belief stood (para 10).