The Kohima Bench of the Gauhati High Court upheld the seizure of areca nuts worth over Rs 43 lakh by Customs authorities, holding that the power of seizure under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 was validly exercised on the basis of a reasonable belief that the goods were liable to confiscation. Justice Pranjal Das dismissed the writ petition filed by Sarvadeva Vanijya Pvt. Ltd., while directing release of the seized vehicle to its owner upon fulfilment of prescribed conditions.

The petitioner-company, engaged in the business of areca nuts, challenged the seizure of a truck carrying areca nuts and the goods loaded therein by Customs officials at Dimapur on 6 November 2025. According to the petitioner, the goods had been lawfully procured from Hailakandi and were being transported to its own godown at Guwahati as a stock transfer supported by a delivery note. It was argued that the seizure was based merely on suspicion that the goods were of foreign origin and that Customs authorities lacked jurisdiction to act on alleged violations relating to GST compliance.

The Customs Department, however, contended that the interception was carried out based on specific intelligence inputs regarding areca nut smuggling in the North-Eastern region. It was submitted that at the time of interception, no invoice, e-way bill, delivery challan or any supporting document was produced by the person in charge of the vehicle. The department also pointed out that the truck was carrying 33,600 kilograms of areca nuts packed in 480 bags and that the driver allegedly assaulted a Customs official before fleeing from the spot.

“The satisfaction of the criteria of the ‘reason to believe’ for the purpose of Section 110 of the Act has to be seen in the circumstances prevailing at the time of the seizure and through the experienced eye of the Customs officer.”

Examining the scope of Section 110 of the Customs Act, the High Court observed that the validity of a seizure must be tested on the basis of the materials available before the Customs officer at the time the action was taken and not on documents produced subsequently. The Court noted that the absence of transportation documents, the large quantity and value of the goods, the conduct of the driver, and intelligence inputs relating to smuggling activities constituted relevant circumstances for forming a reasonable belief that the goods were liable to confiscation.

The Court further held that judicial review does not permit a reappreciation of whether the Court itself would have formed the same belief as the Customs officer. What is required is the existence of material capable of supporting such belief.

“The Customs officer had reasons to believe to exercise the powers under Section 110 of the Act in the instant case.”

Holding that the seizure of the areca nuts was a bona fide exercise of statutory power, the Court declined to order release of the goods. At the same time, it clarified that if confiscation proceedings are initiated under Section 111 of the Customs Act, the petitioner must be given notice and an opportunity of hearing under Section 124 and would be entitled to produce all supporting documents to contest confiscation.

As regards the vehicle used for transportation, the Court noted that it belonged to a third party, who had been impleaded as a proforma respondent. Considering the facts of the case, it directed Customs authorities to release the vehicle to its owner after necessary verification and upon furnishing an appropriate bond and complying with suitable conditions.

Thus, the writ petition was dismissed, with the High Court upholding the seizure of the areca nuts while directing conditional release of the vehicle.

To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below.