Quashing Seizure Memo Does Not Prevent Customs Dept. from Investigation and Process: Patna HC [Read Order]
Although the Patna High Court quashed the seizure, it reiterated that the Customs Department may continue their investigation.
![Quashing Seizure Memo Does Not Prevent Customs Dept. from Investigation and Process: Patna HC [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2025/09/24/2090344-patna-hc-customs-customs-department-customs-department-operations-taxscan.webp "Quashing Seizure Memo Does Not Prevent Customs Dept. from Investigation and Process: Patna HC [Read Order]")
In a recent decision, the Patna High Court quashed a seizure memo issued against a betel nut trader, while clarifying that such quashal does not bar the Customs Department from continuing its investigation under law.
The petitioner, Govind and Company, a proprietorship firm based in Guwahati had challenged the seizure of 17,085 kilograms of betel nuts valued at over ₹51 lakh along with a Tata truck on 12 January 2020.
Also Read:SCN Issued u/s 74 of GST Act Despite Return Filed: Patna HC sets aside Orders [Read Order]
The items were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962.
The seizure memo issued by the department alleged violations of Sections 7, 11, 46 and 47 of the Act, read with Section 3(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and Ministry of Finance Notification NO. 9/96 (NT) – CUS dated 22.01.1996.
The petitioner, represented by Prabhat Ranjan, argued that the seizure memo was unsustainable as it lacked recorded reasons to believe that there existed a statutory requirement to effectuate seizure under Section 110 of the Customs Act.
The petitioner further submitted that the matter was covered by the earlier ruling of the High Court in M/s Ashoke Das and Another v. Union of India (2025), where an identical seizure memo had been quashed.
Complete practical guide to Drafting Commercial Contracts, Click Here
The Customs Department, represented by Dr. K.N. Singh and Anshuman Singh and Shivaditya Dhani Sinha informed the Court that the decision in Ashoke Das (supra) had been acted upon by the Department but they possessed no information regarding the institution of any special leave petition to appeal the judgment.
The Bench of Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Ashok Kumar Pandey noted that the seizure memo in question was in the same form that was considered in Ashoke Das (supra), where the Court critiqued the customs’ non-compliance with Section 110(1) due to the seizing officer’s failure to record reasons to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation.
Relying on the earlier decision in Ashoke Das (supra) and orders of coordinate Benches, the Patna High Court held that mere reproduction of statutory provisions was insufficient.
Although the seizure was quashed, the Bench reaffirmed that quashing a seizure memo cannot be construed to mean that the Department is prevented from conducting investigation or proceeding in accordance with law under the Customs Act.
It was further held that the Department retained the authority to continue with the process through requisite show cause notices and adjudication.
Know Practical Aspects of Tax Planning, Click Here
Accordingly, the Patna High Court quashed the seizure memo dated 12 January 2020 and disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the Department to investigate and proceed under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
