Validity of Time Extension for Customs Seizure to Be Decided in Adjudication, Not By Writ Courts: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court has refused to interfere with the seizure of gold and cash from a hallmark assay centre employee, holding that questions regarding alleged document tampering and validity of extension of investigation must be examined by the statutory adjudicating authority under the Customs Act, 1962 rather than in writ proceedings. The bench of Justices Rajarshi Bharadwaj and Uday Kumar dismissed an intra-court appeal filed by Naim Ali Mallick alias Naim Ali Mullick, while directing the Customs department to conclude adjudication within three months. The appellant, chief staff at a Hallmark Assay Centre operating as M/s Chennai Touch in Hooghly district, had challenged the seizure of approximately 154.8 grams of gold and ₹19.77 lakh in cash conducted by Customs officials on January 18, 2024. The seizure was effected under Section 110(1) of the Customs Act on suspicion of smuggling. Following the seizure, a show-cause notice (SCN) dated July 15, 2024 was issued after Customs authorities claimed to have obtained an extension of time under Section 110(2) of the Act on July 10, 2024. The appellant alleged that this extension order was forged or tampered with and was not issued by the competent authority, as required under law. A Single Judge of the High Court had earlier dismissed the writ petition challenging the seizure and the SCN. The appellant then approached the Division Bench in appeal. The appellant argued that the extension of time for issuance of the SCN was illegally granted by a Superintendent of Customs instead of the Commissioner. The extension letter bore discrepancies such as mismatched logos, irregular signature placement, and suspicious formatting. Blank papers were allegedly obtained from him under duress at the time of seizure and later misused. No summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act was issued, undermining the claim of ongoing investigation. Forensic examination by the Central Forensic Science Laboratory and mobile tower location data were sought to establish tampering and his absence from Customs House on the alleged date of extension. On this basis, the appellant sought quashing of the seizure and immediate release of the gold and cash. Customs authorities contended that the Commissioner had duly approved the extension with recorded reasons and intimated the appellant. The SCN was issued within the extended statutory period. Allegations of forgery and coercion were unsupported by contemporaneous complaints. The Single Judge had examined the records and found no prima facie indication of tampering. The appellant’s non-cooperation justified the extension of investigation time. The department submitted that questions relating to authenticity of documents and sufficiency of investigation are matters for adjudication under the statute. The Division Bench observed that the dispute primarily concerns factual issues such as authenticity of the extension order, compliance with Section 110(2), adequacy of investigation, and legitimacy of the seizure. The Court held that such issues cannot be conclusively determined in writ jurisdiction and must be examined by the adjudicating authority designated under the Customs Act. Noting that the Single Judge had found no “apparent reason to doubt” the genuineness of documents at this stage, the Bench declined to set aside the seizure or order immediate release of goods. While dismissing the appeal, the Court directed that the adjudicating authority shall expedite the show-cause notice proceedings. The appellant must be given full opportunity to raise all pleas, including allegations of forgery and procedural irregularities. Adjudication must be completed within three months with a reasoned order. Status quo regarding the seized gold and cash shall continue, subject to statutory remedies available for provisional release. Case Details Case Title: Naim Ali Mallick Alias Naim Ali Mullick Versus The Principal Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive) & Ors. Case No.: APO 103 OF 2025 Date: 10/02/2026 Counsel For Petitioner: Sukanta Chakraborty, Adv. Counsel For Respondent: Uday Sankar Bhattacharyya, Adv. Click Here To Read Order Read More: Customs Duty Weekly Flashback: 08 To 14 February 2026

Validity of Time Extension for Customs Seizure to Be Decided in Adjudication, Not By Writ Courts: Calcutta HC

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