‘Reason to Believe’ Need Not Be Detailed in Seizure Memo: Calcutta HC Upholds Betel Nuts Seizure

The Calcutta High Court has dismissed an appeal challenging the seizure of a domestic consignment of betel nuts by the Customs department holding that the preventive officers had sufficient “reason to believe” that the goods were of smuggled foreign origin and the ‘reason to believe’ need not be detailed in the seizure memo. The Bench of Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj and Justice Uday Kumar upheld the legality of the seizure despite the interception having taken place at an inland location not notified as a customs checkpoint. The appellant/assessee, a proprietorship concern engaged in trading areca (betel) nuts sourced from Indian farmers and registered suppliers, had dispatched 17,780 kilograms of betel nuts from Kolkata to New Delhi in April 2025. The goods were accompanied by a valid GST invoice and e-Way Bill, indicating a purely domestic transaction. On April 5, 2025, the consignment vehicle was intercepted by officers of the Customs Preventive and Intelligence Branch, Kolkata, at Chikanpara in North 24-Parganas, an inland area close to the Indo-Bangladesh border. The Customs Inspector seized both the goods and the vehicle, alleging that the betel nuts were of foreign origin and liable to confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant contended that the seizure was illegal and without jurisdiction, arguing that the interception occurred on a normal inland road not notified as a customs checkpoint. Valid GST documents and an e-Way Bill were produced at the time of interception. The seizure memo did not record any specific material constituting “reason to believe” as required under Section 110(1) of the Customs Act. The goods were purely domestic and did not qualify as “imported goods” under the Act. Serious allegations of corruption were raised against customs officials, including an alleged demand and payment of illegal gratification. A writ petition challenging the seizure was dismissed by a Single Judge in August 2025, prompting the present intra-court appeal. The department defended the action, asserting that preventive officers are empowered to act on prima facie suspicion of smuggling, especially in border-proximate areas known for illegal cross-border trade. They relied on the unusual deviation of the vehicle from the Kolkata–Delhi route. The interception location’s proximity to the Indo-Bangladesh border. Statements suggesting local sourcing from border-area markets. Established Supreme Court precedents limiting judicial scrutiny over the sufficiency of “reason to believe” at the seizure stage. The customs department further argued that under Section 123 of the Customs Act, the burden of proving licit origin lies on the person from whom the goods are seized. The court held that the requirement of “reason to believe” under Section 110(1) only mandates a prima facie satisfaction of the officer at the time of seizure. The Courts cannot dissect or microscopically examine the sufficiency of such belief if there exists material giving rise to suspicion. The absence of detailed reasons in the seizure memo does not, by itself, vitiate the seizure. Preventive customs powers extend to inland areas close to international borders when circumstances indicate possible smuggling. Allegations of corruption could not be examined in writ proceedings at this stage, particularly when the investigation under the Customs Act was ongoing. The court relied on settled Supreme Court jurisprudence, including State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal, to reiterate that judicial interference at the investigation stage must be minimal The High Court dismissed the appeal and allowed the customs investigation to continue. The Court found no jurisdictional error or procedural illegality warranting interference and refused to quash the seizure or direct action against customs officials at this stage. Case Details Case Title: Biswajit Roy Bir Versus UOI Case No.: APOT 262 OF 2025 Date: 15 .01.2026 Counsel For Petitioner: Mainak Bose, Sr. Adv. Counsel For Respondent: Kaushik Dey, Adv. Click Here To Read Order Read More: Writ Jurisdiction Can’t Be Used To Bypass Mandatory Pre-Deposit Once GSTAT Is Functional: Orissa HC

‘Reason to Believe’ Need Not Be Detailed in Seizure Memo: Calcutta HC Upholds Betel Nuts Seizure

Membership Required

Latest articles

Parliamentary Panel to Review Reservation Policy in CBIC, CBDT

GST Registration Cancellation Without Reasons Amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of Business: Supreme Court

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 21 JULY, 2026

Is Six-Month Notice Under GST Section 74 Mandatory? Supreme Court Stays Assessment Orders

More like this

Parliamentary Panel to Review Reservation Policy in CBIC, CBDT

GST Registration Cancellation Without Reasons Amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of Business: Supreme Court

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 21 JULY, 2026

About us

Company

Categories