Legal principle

'Reasons to believe' under Section 110(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 is a condition precedent to seizure: the officer must have material with a live link and rational nexus showing the goods are liable to confiscation (e.g., of foreign origin under Section 111), and a mere suspicion or hunch confers no jurisdiction to seize.

Court decision

The Gauhati High Court (Justice Devashis Baruah) held that 'reasons to believe' is a condition precedent to seizure under Section 110(1), and since there was no material showing the areca nuts were of foreign origin or brought from outside India, Section 111 could not apply, making the seizure based on mere suspicion and therefore without jurisdiction and authority of law. The court decided in favour of the petitioner: the seizure was set aside and quashed, the areca nuts and the truck (TATA LPT 1916, Regn. No. AS 08 C 3453) were directed to be released forthwith, and the proceedings were to be brought to closure unless fresh materials emerged.

Facts

The petitioner, a proprietorship firm of Harun Rashid, collected 17,200 kgs of Assam dried areca nuts and sold them for Rs.33,81,000 (invoice dated 30.11.2025) to another person also named Harun Rashid, the goods being trucked from Hailakandi to a godown at Rupohihat, Nagaon. The truck was intercepted at Karimganj and the areca nuts were seized on 02.12.2025 by the Inspector of Customs (Preventive Force), Badarpur, on the recorded ground of suspected smuggling/illegal import into India through a route other than that specified under Section 7(1)(c), without licit documents, and in violation of Section 11 read with the Export (Control) Order No.1/88 applicable under Sections 3 and 4 of the FTDR Act, 1992. Samples tested by the State Public Health Laboratory, Bamunimaidan, showed the goods fit for human consumption, though packages lacked FSSAI licence numbers, and nothing established that the nuts were of foreign origin. The petitioner's application for provisional release was rejected by order dated 12.02.2026, which recorded the 'reason to believe' that the nuts were of foreign origin suspected to be illegally imported from Myanmar, prompting the writ petition.

Key provisions

• Section 7(1)(c), Customs Act, 1962 — Appointment of customs ports, airports
• Section 11, The Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 — Contravention of provisions of this Act, rules, orders and foreign trade policy.
• Section 4, The Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 — Continuance of existing orders.
• Section 3, The Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 — Powers to make provisions relating to imports and exports.