Seizure Quashed as Customs Violated Mandatory Section 144 While Drawing Distillate Fuel Oil Samples Without Authority

HC held that samples of imported Distillate Fuel Oil were drawn in violation of mandatory Section 144 of the Customs Act, 1962, as they were taken in the absence of the owner/importer and without any statutory or administrative authority permitting such procedure. The Court found the department's inconsistent treatment of samples collected at different locations unsustainable and held that both sets of samples were legally invalid. Consequently, the test report of the Visakhapatnam Laboratory, based on such samples, could not justify seizure. The seizure memo issued by the customs authorities was declared illegal and quashed, and the writ petition by the importer was allowed.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether the samples of imported Distillate Fuel Oil drawn on 30.09.2025 by the Customs authority at Hazira and on 08.10.2025 by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Jamnagar, complied with the mandatory requirements of Section 144 of the Customs Act, 1962.

1.2 Whether test reports based on samples drawn in contravention of Section 144 of the Customs Act, 1962 could validly be relied upon to seize the imported goods.

1.3 Consequences for the seizure order and future investigation when the foundational sampling of goods is found to be contrary to Section 144 of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Compliance of sampling with Section 144 of the Customs Act, 1962

Legal framework

2.1 The Court reproduced Section 144 of the Customs Act, 1962, noting in particular that the proper officer may take samples "in the presence of the owner thereof" for examination or testing or for any other purposes of the Act, and that this requirement is couched in mandatory terms.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.2 The Court found, on the basis of the affidavit dated 09.12.2025 and the preliminary investigation report produced in sealed cover, that the sample initially drawn by the Customs authority at Hazira and sent to CRCL, Vadodara, was not drawn in the presence of the proper officer and was expressly disowned as "authentic" by the Department itself, which admitted that it was not drawn in the presence of the proper officer.

2.3 The Court further held that the sample subsequently drawn by DRI, Jamnagar, on 08.10.2025 was also taken in the absence of the owner/importer. The Department treated this sample as authentic only on the ground that it was drawn in the presence of panch witnesses, though no such alternative mode is prescribed under the Act.

2.4 When queried, the Department was unable to point to any other statutory provision or administrative instruction authorising Customs or DRI officers to draw samples in the absence of the importer/owner contrary to Section 144.

2.5 The Court rejected the Department's attempt to approbate and reprobate by disowning the Hazira sample as unauthentic (for non-compliance with statutory requirements) while simultaneously treating the DRI, Jamnagar sample, also drawn in the absence of the owner, as authentic. It held that no distinct or superior legal status attaches to a sample only because it is drawn in the presence of panch witnesses when the statute mandates presence of the owner.

2.6 The Court held that the mandate of Section 144-that the proper officer must draw samples "in the presence of the owner"-was violated in respect of both the samples drawn on 30.09.2025 (by Customs, Hazira) and on 08.10.2025 (by DRI, Jamnagar).

Conclusions

2.7 Both samples relied upon in the matter were drawn de hors Section 144 of the Customs Act, 1962, because they were not taken in the presence of the owner/importer; accordingly, they could not be treated as lawful or authentic samples for the purposes of further action under the Act.

Issue 2: Validity of reliance on test reports and legality of seizure based on samples drawn in contravention of Section 144

Interpretation and reasoning

2.8 The Court noted that the entire controversy turned on two conflicting test reports: one from CRCL, Vadodara (favourable to the importer) and another, obtained through DRI, Jamnagar, from Visakhapatnam Laboratory (adverse to the importer). It held that both reports were fundamentally vitiated because the underlying samples were drawn in violation of Section 144.

2.9 The Court held that once the taking of samples itself is contrary to the statutory mandate, any test report generated from such samples "will have no consequence" in law and cannot be invoked to justify coercive action such as seizure of goods.

2.10 The Court thereby rejected the Department's reliance on the adverse test report obtained through DRI, Jamnagar, and held that the seizure based on such a report, resting on illegally drawn samples, could not be sustained.

Conclusions

2.11 Since the foundational act of sampling was non-compliant with Section 144 of the Customs Act, 1962, neither the favourable nor the adverse test reports could be validly relied upon. Consequently, the seizure of the petitioner's goods under the impugned Seizure Memo, founded upon such defective sampling and testing, was declared illegal and was quashed and set aside.

Issue 3: Consequences for ongoing investigation and future sampling

Interpretation and reasoning

2.12 While quashing the seizure, the Court refrained from making detailed comments on the preliminary investigation into the conduct of officers but noted that officers had disowned responsibility for the irregular sampling, and that the Department had already initiated a process of seeking clarification from the concerned officers.

2.13 The Court clarified that invalidity of the sampling and seizure does not bar continuation of the investigation. It held that the authorities remain free to proceed in accordance with law, including by drawing fresh samples, provided that the statutory conditions, particularly those of Section 144, are strictly complied with.

2.14 The Court also directed that the petitioner file an undertaking before the Customs authority and clarified that the respondents may undertake a fresh sampling exercise under Section 144 in the presence of the petitioner, to which the petitioner had expressed no objection.

Conclusions

2.15 The seizure having been set aside, the authorities were directed to release the goods forthwith. At the same time, the Court left it open to the Department to (a) continue investigation, (b) fix accountability of erring officers and take appropriate action under relevant provisions, rules, regulations or administrative instructions, and (c) re-initiate sampling and testing strictly in conformity with Section 144 of the Customs Act, 1962, in the presence of the owner/importer.

---