The Bombay High Court has quashed the customs seizure of roasted areca nuts after Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) clearance.
The bench of Justice M.S. Karnik and Justice Sandesh D. Patil set aside the seizure memo dated May 19, 2026, as well as the provisional-release condition requiring the importer to furnish the bank guarantee and directed Customs Department to immediately release imported roasted areca nut splits without insisting on a bank guarantee of ₹40 lakh, holding that the dispute was squarely covered by its earlier ruling concerning the evidentiary value of clearance granted by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI).
The Court, however, directed the importer to obtain a fresh fitness certificate from the FSSAI before dealing with the goods in the open market. This safeguard was imposed because the consignments had remained in the custody of the Customs authorities since March 2026.
Buy Now: Customs Duty E-Magazine – August 2026
The petitioner imported two consignments declared as “Roasted Arecanuts Splits (Betel Nuts)” on March 28, 2026, under Bills of Entry.
Customs authorities examined the consignments and drew samples, which were sent to the FSSAI for testing. On April 10, 2026, the food-safety regulator issued a no-objection certificate after finding that the imported goods conformed to the requirements of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
Despite the FSSAI clearance, the consignments were not released. The importer consequently approached the Bombay High Court on April 23, 2026.
During the pendency of the writ petition, Customs sent samples of the imported products to the Central Revenue Control Laboratory in New Delhi for further testing. Two CRCL reports dated May 5, 2026, recorded moisture content of 6.8% and 6.9% in the respective samples.
Customs subsequently seized the goods on May 19, 2026.
Although the importer requested provisional release against execution of a bond, the competent authority passed an order on June 22, 2026, permitting release only upon execution of a bond and furnishing of a ₹40 lakh bank guarantee.
The petitioner then amended its writ petition to challenge both the seizure memo and the bank-guarantee requirement.
The Customs authorities argued that the nature, description and tariff classification declared by an importer always remain subject to verification, reassessment and investigation by the proper officer under the Customs Act, 1962, and the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
According to the department, an NOC issued by an authorised FSSAI officer merely establishes compliance with food-safety requirements and does not conclusively determine the appropriate customs tariff classification of the imported goods.
The jurisdiction of the FSSAI was confined to examining whether the imported food articles complied with the standards prescribed under the Food Safety and Standards Act, the department submitted.
Customs maintained that the samples were referred to the CRCL because a bona fide classification dispute existed. It consequently defended both the seizure of the goods and the requirement that the importer furnish a ₹40 lakh security deposit or bank guarantee for their provisional release.
The petitioner contended that once the goods had been examined and cleared by the authorised FSSAI officer, there was no justification for Customs to undertake another examination through the CRCL.
It was argued that the question of releasing roasted areca nuts against a bond, without insisting on a security deposit, had already been settled by the Bombay High Court in NBG International Private Limited v. Union of India and Others.
The petitioner also pointed out that the principles laid down in NBG International had subsequently been followed by the Calcutta High Court, the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Madras High Court in similar disputes concerning imported goods.
Accepting the importer’s case, the Bombay High Court held that the issue arising in the petition was squarely covered by its judgment in NBG International.
The Court referred to the earlier decision in Make Index Impex v. Union of India, which concerned the import of soybeans alleged by Customs to be harmful for human consumption.
In that case, the Court had held that once the FSSAI took a clear position that the goods were not harmful for human consumption and satisfied the requirements of the food-safety law, Customs could not adopt a contrary position on their fitness for consumption.
The Bench also emphasised the detailed procedure prescribed under the FSSAI Food Import Manual for laboratory analysis of imported food products.
Under the prescribed process, samples are forwarded through the Food Import Clearance System to a randomly selected notified laboratory. The laboratory must analyse the samples according to the parameters laid down under the Food Safety and Standards Act and the regulations framed under it.
The laboratory is required to upload its report within five days of receiving a sample and provide a conclusive opinion on whether the product conforms to the applicable standards.
The Court noted that FSSAI has notified laboratories accredited by the National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories for testing imported food consignments. Referral laboratories have also been notified for retesting samples when an importer files an appeal.
Relying on its earlier judgment, the Bench observed that these safeguards demonstrate the precise nature and high standards of the tests conducted under the FSSAI framework before food products are cleared as suitable for human consumption.
The earlier ruling had consequently found that, in the circumstances of such cases, opening another window for reclassification of goods that had already been categorised and cleared was not based on a sound premise.
Holding that the principles laid down in NBG International fully governed the controversy, the High Court allowed the writ petition.
It quashed the seizure memo dated May 19, 2026, and set aside the June 22 provisional-release order to the extent that it required the petitioner to furnish a security deposit or bank guarantee of ₹40 lakh.
The Court directed the Customs authority to release the imported goods forthwith without insisting on a bank guarantee.
At the same time, considering that the food products had remained with Customs since March 2026, the Bench required the petitioner to obtain another certificate of fitness from the FSSAI before selling or otherwise dealing with the goods in the open market.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
