Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J. – Heard Ms. Archana Meenakshee, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. K. N. Singh, learned ASG assisted by Mr. Anshuman Singh, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Department of CGST/CX.

2. The petitioner in this case is challenging the Seizure Memo dated 21.04.2023 (Annexure ‘P/6’ to the writ application) whereby and whereunder 35 bags of wheat containing 55 Kgs each have been seized by one Sunil Dutt Gaurola, Assistant Sub- Inspector, 47 Battalion, Shashtra Seema Bal, Bihar and handed over to the Assistant Commandant ‘A’ COY, 47th Battalion, SSB, Bihar. The petitioner has also prayed for the provisional release of the seized vehicle along with the consignment of 35 bags of wheats.

3. At the outset, it is recorded that in course of hearing of the writ application on 23.06.2025, learned counsel for the petitioner has specifically submitted that she would confine her submissions in this case only with regard to the seizure of the wheat. Since the order of confiscation has been passed during pendency of the writ application and the order of confiscation was brought on record by the respondents with their counter affidavit, the petitioner filed an interlocutory application seeking quashing of the Adjudication Order No. 107/CUS/DC/MTH/2023-24 dated 22.12.2023 which is Annexure ‘C’ to the supplementary counter affidavit of respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6. A copy of the said order has been annexed as Annexure ‘P/7’ to the Interlocutory Application No. 1 of 2025. In the interlocutory application, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: –

“(i) To quash order-in-original No.107/CUS/DC/MTH/2023-24 DATED 22.12.2023 whereby adjudicating authority has confiscated the seized goods valued at Rs.46,200/- and seized conveyance valued at Rs.3,20,000/- under section 113 and 115 of the Customs Act, 1962 as per averment of respondent no.4, 5 and 6 in paragraph 5 of their supplementary counter affidavit.

(ii) To set aside the e-auction order of the instant seized goods vide no. MSTC/PTN/Customs dated 1.2.2024 involving Rs.31,678/- as sales proceeds as per the averment of Respondent no.4, 5 and 6 in paragraph 8 of their supplementary counter affidavit.

(iii) To grant petitioner the seizure value of the seized goods valued at Rs.46,200/- as per the averment of Respondent no.4, 5 and 6 in paragraph 5 of their supplementary counter affidavit.”

4. This Court, vide its order dated 13.05.2025, allowed the petitioner to amend the writ application. Respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6 have also filed a counter affidavit to the interlocutory application. This Court has recorded in it’s order that the statements made in the interlocutory application and the prayers made in paragraph ‘4’ of the application shall form part and parcel of the writ application.

5. It has been noticed that initially when the counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6, the State Respondents have brought on record the Seizure Memo prepared on 24.01.2023 at 06:10 Hours under signature of the Officer who has signed for Assistant Commandant ‘A’ COY, 47th Battalion, SSB, Bihar. The Seizure Memo contains the signature of two persons as witness, namely, Javed and Naimul Hoda of Village Basantpur, District-West Champaran.

6. The Seizure Memo contains reason for seizure which reads as under: –

“Violation of Section 7, 11, 46 and 47/50 & 51 of Custom Act, 1962 read with Section 3(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulations) Act, 1992 & Government of India, Ministry of Finances, 1962”

7. As regards the Seizure Memo, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the Seizure Memo, it would appear that the reasons for seizure as required to be shown in the Seizure Memo in terms of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1962’) has not been duly shown. Relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of M/s Ashoke Das vs. Union of India & Ors. (disposed of on 19.02.2025 vide C.W.J.C. No. 491