TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 868
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....STIN 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-W....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g 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.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ulterior motive, exemplified by respondent no. threatening one Mr. Sanjay Baral with detention/arrest. The appellant/petitioner lodged a corruption complaint, however the Learned Single Judge erred gravely in ignoring this malfeasance and failing to direct proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against errant officers, warranting immediate judicial intervention. 9. The Learned Counsel elaborates on multiple errors in the impugned order dated August 07, 2025. The Learned Single Judge overlooked the challenge to the very existence (not mere sufficiency) of "reason to believe". The seizure memo shows none, failing the mandatory threshold under Section 110(1). This core defect strikes at the seizure's validity ab init....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er officer acted on prima facie "reason to believe" that the betel nuts were smuggled foreign-origin goods liable to confiscation. Courts cannot sit in appeal over the officer's reasonable belief, which is assessed from contemporaneous suspicious circumstances through the experienced lens of customs officials combating smuggling. 12. The Learned Counsel contends that the appellant's challenge to the absence of "reason to believe" in the seizure memo is untenable, as a settled Supreme Court law in State of Gujarat v. Shri Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal reported in 1987 ELT 483 (SC), affirming Pukhran v. D.R. Kohli reported in AIR 1962 SC 1559, prohibits courts from microscopically examining whether the officer entertained reasonable be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of discharging Section 123 burden, impugned order merits upholding, as no irreparable harm outweighs public interest in anti-smuggling. 16. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the records this Court is of the view that the appeal lacks merit and warrants dismissal. The appeal is dismissed because "reasons to believe" under Section 110(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 requires only the officer's prima facie satisfaction based on material available at the time of seizure, without necessitating a detailed analysis or dissection of those reasons by the court. 17. Courts assess whether a proper officer formed a reasonable belief from contemporaneous circumstances, such as the interception near the Indo-Bangladesh....