Betel Nut Smuggling: Calcutta HC Holds Seizure Memo not Invalid for Lack of Detailed Reasons when Prima Facie Grounds Exist [Read Order]

The Calcutta High Court has held that a seizure memo under Section 110(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be treated as invalid merely because it does not contain elaborate or detailed reasons when prima facie grounds exist.

The Division bench of Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj and Justice Uday Kumar observed that it upheld the seizure of a consignment of betel nuts intercepted near the Indo-Bangladesh border.

The bench said that courts are not expected to microscopically dissect the sufficiency of the officer’s belief at the stage of seizure when suspicious circumstances exist.

M/s Biswajit Traders, the appellant is engaged in trading areca nuts/betel nuts sourced from Indian farmers and registered suppliers. The company claimed that it issued a valid GST tax invoice and e-way bill on April 4, 2025 for supply of 17,780 kg of betel nuts from Kolkata to M/s Podder Agro, New Delhi.

The goods were transported in a vehicle bearing registration NL01AB2625, and according to the appellant, the consignment was meant strictly for domestic movement within India.

However, on April 5, 2025, an Inspector of the Customs Preventive and Intelligence Branch intercepted the vehicle at Chikanpara in West Bengal, an inland area and not a notified customs checkpoint.

The driver produced an invoice and e-way bill to the customs. However, the authorities seized both the consignment and the vehicle under a seizure case, alleging that the betel nuts appeared to be of foreign origin and were suspected to be smuggled.

The appellant raised allegations that the godown in-charge was threatened with arrest and that a demand for illegal gratification was made by persons linked to the .

The appellant further claimed that summons were issued under Section 108 in an effort to impose pressure, and that an email complaint about corruption was sent to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs.

Customs official

Before the high court, the appellant challenged the seizure stating that Customs lacked jurisdiction to seize goods in a domestic transit supported by valid GST documents, and that the seizure memo did not disclose the mandatory “reason to believe” under Section 110(1).

Initially, the Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on August 7, 2025, observing that the investigation was still ongoing and that there was material supporting the officer’s prima facie opinion, including the fact that the interception location was close to the Indo-Bangladesh border and was off the usual Kolkata-Delhi route.

The appellant then preferred the present appeal against that order. The Division Bench entertained the appeal and it dismissed the same holding that the challenge lacked merit.

It was clarified by the court that the requirement of “reason to believe” under Section 110(1) is satisfied if the officer forms a prima facie satisfaction based on material available at the time, and that the law does not require the seizure memo to contain a detailed analysis of such reasons.

“Mere absence of detailed reasons in the seizure memo does not invalidate the action if prima facie grounds exist on record” said the bench.

The court said that “The appeal is dismissed because "reasons to believe" under Section 110(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 requires only the officer's prima facie satisfaction based on material available at the time of seizure, without necessitating a detailed analysis or dissection of those reasons by the court.”

Therefore, the division concurred with the decision of the single bench. It said that the single bench rightly took the decision not to interfere with the order.

The appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates