IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION

ORIGINAL SIDE

BEFORE:

HON’BLE JUSTICE RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY

WPO/373/2025

BISWAJIT ROY BIR

VS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

For the petitioner : Mr. Saurabh Bagaria, Adv.

Ms. Arijita Ghosh, Adv. Ms. Samrita Das, Adv.

For the respondents : Mr. Kaushik Dey, Adv.

Mr. Tapan Bhanja, Adv.

Heard on : 07.08.2025

Judgment on : 7th August, 2025

RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY, J (ORAL):

1. The petitioner seeks to challenge the seizure notice dated 5th October, 2025

whereby the consignment of betel nuts which the customs department claimed to be of foreign origin had been seized. The petitioner's case proceeds on the premise that the petitioner is engaged in the business of Trading of betel/areca nuts, procured from farmers and registered suppliers. The same is run under the name and style of Biswajit Traders. The petitioner has requisite licence for running such business. In usual course, the petitioner received orders for supply of 17,780 kilograms of betel/areca nuts from one M/s. Poddar Agro, a firm

carrying on business at New Delhi.

2. Consequent thereupon, the petitioner with the object of supplying the

betel/areca nuts had loaded the same from a godown under the supervision of the godown in-charge and after the loading was complete, the vehicle with the

consignment of areca nuts under valid e-way bills commenced its journey from Kolkata to the consignee's address at New Delhi.

3. The vehicle along with the consignment was intercepted at Chikanpara near Chikanpara Primary School on Gaighata-Thakurnagar Road, North 24 Parganas by the respondent no.5, who is an Inspector of Customs, Preventive and Intelligence Branch on 5th April, 2025. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid consignment was intercepted notwithstanding the driver producing all relevant documents, inter alia, including the invoice and e-way bill. On the same day, the goods were seized and a seizure memo was made over to the petitioner’s representative/driver i.e. on 5th April, 2025.

4. Mr. Bagaria, learned Advocate appearing in support of the writ petition would submit that from a perusal of the seizure memo, it would transpire that no case for seizure has been made out. According to him, for the respondent no.5 to effect the seizure, specific terms have been provided and specified in section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”). The primary condition being that the officer has to form an opinion/have reasons to believe that the goods are liable for confiscation. By placing before this Court the seizure memo, he would submit that from a perusal of the seizure memo, it would transpire that the grounds on which the goods have been seized is based on the alleged claim that the goods have been smuggled and they are betel nuts of foreign origin. According to Mr. Bagaria, since the petitioner is a trader and the goods were underway for supply from Kolkata to Delhi, the aforesaid allegation made by the respondent no.5 is entirely unfounded and has no basis. Mr. Bagaria would still further submit by drawing attention of this Court to the seizure memo that the ground for seizure of the goods being the goods liable for confiscation under Sections 111(b), 111(d) and 121 of the said Act, though Sections 111(b), 111(d) and Section 121 are mutually incongruous. By placing before this Court the provisions of Sections 111(b) and 111(d) and 121, he would submit that if the provisions of Sections 111(b) and 111(d) are invoked, Section 121 has no application. He has also placed before this Court the definition of imported goods and would submit that in the facts of this case, the above seizure memo would not make out a case for the authorities to seize the petitioner's goods. He would submit that he has not approached this court to challenge the sufficiency of the reasons to believe, but the attack is directed against the very formation of opinion of the concerned officer to invoke Section 110 of the said Act. In support of his c