IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION

(Original Side)

Reserved on : 06.01.2026. Pronounced on : 15 .01.2026

APOT 262 OF 2025

With

IA No. GA 1 of 2025

BISWAJIT ROY BIR

...Appellant

-Vs-

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

...Respondents

Present:-

Mr. Mainak Bose, Sr. Adv. Mr. Akshat Agarwal, Adv.

Mr. Piyal Gupta, Adv.

Ms. Doyel Dey, Adv.

…for the appellant

Mr. Samarjit Roy Chaudhury, Adv.

Ms. Rama Chakraborty, Adv.

….. for the Union of India

Mr. Kaushik Dey, Adv.

Mr. Tapan Bhanja, Adv.

….. for the Customs Authority

Coram: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ,

And

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR

Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J:

1. The facts in a nutshell are that the appellant/petitioner, M/s Biswajit Traders, a proprietorship concern with GSTIN 19FRGPB5487N2ZO, engages in trading areca nuts/betel nuts sourced from indigenous Indian farmers and registered suppliers. On April 04, 2025, it issued Tax Invoice No. BT/25- 26/002 and e-Way Bill No. 821516556676 for supplying 17,780 kgs of betel nuts to one M/s Podder Agro (GSTIN 07AXUPP6136D1Z4) in New Delhi. The consignment loaded onto goods vehicle NL01AB2625 for domestic transit from Kolkata to New Delhi.

2. On April 05, 2025, respondent no. 5 being the Inspector of Customs Preventive and Intelligence Branch, Kolkata, intercepted the vehicle at Chikanpara on Gaighata-Thakurnagar Road, North 24-Parganas, West Bengal which is an inland location not notified as a customs checkpoint. Despite the driver producing the invoice and e-Way Bill, the officer seized the consignment and vehicle under Seizure Case No. 01/IMP/CL/BETEL NUTS/P&I- II/CC(P)/WB/2025-26, alleging foreign origin without disclosing any "reason to believe" under Section 110(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The driver, one Kamlesh Kumar, was detained and his phone was seized. The call logs led to summoning one Sanjay Baral, the godown in-charge.

3. Mr. Baral, summoned telephonically to Customs House and alleges threats of arrest by respondent no. 5 and one Mr. Anindya Mukherjee, associated to the office of respondent no.5 demanding Rs. 20 lakhs, reduced to Rs. 10 lakhs paid in cash between 7:30-8:00 p.m. on April 05, 2025. The appellant/writ petitioner lodged a corruption complaint via email dated April 18, 2025 to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs. Respondent no. 4 issued summons under Section 108, prompting further complaints of jurisdictional overreach.

4. Challenging the seizure as without jurisdiction, lack of reason to believe and motivated by corruption, the appellant/writ petitioner filed W.P.O. No. 373 of 2025. By order dated August 07, 2025, the Learned Single Judge dismissed it, holding investigation ongoing with material supporting the officer's opinion, noting the seizure site's proximity to Indo-Bangladesh border which is off Kolkata-Delhi route and the driver's statement of local purchase from Chikanpara Bazar. Aggrieved by the said order of the Learned Single Judge, the appellant prefers this appeal, seeking stay of the single judge’s order, injunction on proceedings and action under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

5. The Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner submits that the seizure under Section 110(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, lacks "reason to believe" that the goods were smuggled foreign betel nuts, rendering it illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. "Reason to believe" connotes an honest and reasonable belief, formed on the basis of credible material or rational grounds existing at the time of seizure, that the goods are liable to confiscation, however mere suspicion or a roving enquiry does not suffice and such belief must be disclosed on the record of the seizure memo itself, not developed post-facto.

6. The Learned Counsel further submits that the seizure memo/inventory fails to record any facts, materialor circumstances forming the officer's belief of foreign origin, despite the driver producing valid GST invoice (No. BT/25- 26/002) and e-Way Bill (No. 821516556676, which was valid till April 12