TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1169
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... filed by the respondents in Writ Tax No. 258 of 2026, Writ Tax No. 254 of 2026, Writ Tax No. 253 of 2026 and Writ Tax No. 245 of 2026 are taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kuldeep Srivastava, learned counsel for the customs authorities. 3. The above writ petitions deal with a similar issue of seizure of areca nuts by the customs officials and have been accordingly heard out together. In light of the same, common judgement shall apply to all the four writ petitions i.e. Writ Tax No. 258 of 2026, Writ Tax No. 254 of 2026, Writ Tax No. 253 of 2026 and Writ Tax No. 245 of 2026. 4. For ease of the understanding, we are dealing with Writ Tax No. 258 of 2026 and the facts of the same are provided below:....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ration of red arecanut types. Date: 4-12-2025 Tested by: Sri Govinda Bhat S Arecanut Specialist ARDF MANGALURU Approved by: Dr. S. Keshava Bhat Executive Officer ARDF MANGALURU." 6. Being dissatisfied by the said report, the customs authorities once again sent the sample of goods to a different laboratory being the Central Revenue Control Laboratory, IARI, Hill Side Road, Pusa Campus, New Delhi which provided the following report:- "TEST REPORT Reported date: 05.01.2016 Dated: 11.11.2025 1. Lab No: CRCL/Food/08/1125 (Prev)/Dated: 26.11.2025 2. Case No.: 08/2025-26 3. C. No: GEN/INV/Misc/417/2025 1764.13.11.25 4. Name Contact inform....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IS 16962:2018. Hence, the sample u/r may be considered as fit for human consumption. Country of Origin of the sample could not be ascertained due to want of testing facility." 7. Counsel on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the first report clearly indicated that the goods were of Indian origin as pointed out in observation no. 1. Furthermore, the report indicated that the areca nuts are fairly good and fit for human consumption as pointed out in observation no. 2. In the second report, once again it was pointed out that the sample was within the specified limit as per Food Safety and Standards Regulation, 2011. With regard to the origin of the goods, the report stated that the country of origin of the sample could not be ascer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iers, yet with respect to natural products, that are also grown inside the country, no presumption is available to presume or assume that such goods are smuggled unless the assessee or the citizen otherwise satisfies that they are of Indian origin. For assumption of jurisdiction in such cases, credible material must be shown to exit in the hands of the authorities and objective consideration must be shown to have been made to such material - to record the 'reason' that may have led to formation of the 'belief' that the goods are of foreign origin. Whenever such exercise is completed successfully, the jurisdiction may arise to the revenue authorities to detain and seize the goods. Thereafter, it may remain for the assessee to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... origin, the entire exercise of the customs authorities in seizing the goods and thereafter continuing to detain the said goods appears to be not just arbitrary but also malafide. It is astonishing to note that the goods were examined once again, that too, from a Government laboratory that could not ascertain the origin of the goods. Even after the second report has come to light, the authorities have continued to detain the goods without having any basis in law to do so. 13. On our repeated query from learned counsel appearing for the customs authorities that what is the material available with the respondents to make out a reason to believe that the goods subject matter of writ petitions are of foreign origin, he could not place any ma....