Gauhati High Court Clarifies ‘Reason to Believe’ Standard for Customs Seizure Under Section 110 of Customs Act

Background and Context
The writ petition was filed by Sarvadeva Vanijya Pvt. Ltd., challenging the seizure of a truck and areca nuts by customs authorities at Dimapur. The seizure, conducted on 06-11-2025, was based on suspicion that the goods were of foreign origin and liable to confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner contended that the goods were lawfully acquired and transported with supporting documents, and that the seizure was illegal and without jurisdiction, particularly as the customs authorities cited non-production of an E-way Bill, a requirement under GST law.

Arguments and Submissions
The petitioner argued that the customs authorities lacked the requisite ‘reason to believe’ under Section 110 of the Customs Act, as the goods were only suspected to be of foreign origin and no country of origin was specified. It was further contended that the customs authorities could not seize goods for alleged GST violations, as such powers are vested in GST authorities. The petitioner also asserted that the documents subsequently produced should have been considered to validate the transportation.

The customs authorities, in their affidavit, maintained that the seizure was lawful under Section 110, based on objective material: the absence of any invoice, e-way bill, or delivery challan at the time of interception; the high value and quantity of the goods; and suspicious conduct by the driver, including assaulting a customs official and absconding. The authorities emphasized that compliance under GST law does not override customs powers, and that the region is prone to smuggling activities.

Court’s Analysis and Reasoning
Justice Pranjal Das examined the statutory framework of Section 110 of the Customs Act, which empowers a proper officer to seize goods if there is ‘reason to believe’ they are liable to confiscation. The Court cited Supreme Court precedents, including Indru Ramchand Bharvani and State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal, clarifying that the sufficiency of material for forming such belief is not open to judicial review, and that courts should not substitute their own assessment for that of the experienced customs officer.

The Court held that the merit of the seizure must be assessed based on materials available at the time of interception, not on documents produced subsequently. The Court found that the customs officer’s belief was supported by the absence of documents, the high value and quantity of the goods, the driver’s suspicious conduct, and the known smuggling risks in the region.

Decision and Legal Principle
The Court concluded that the customs authorities had a bona fide ‘reason to believe’ under Section 110, justifying the seizure. The petitioner’s request for release of the areca nuts was dismissed. However, the Court directed that the confiscation proceedings under Section 111 must provide the petitioner with notice and an opportunity to be heard, as required by Section 124.

Regarding the seized vehicle, the Court noted that the owner, impleaded as a proforma respondent, had not appeared but ordered that the vehicle be released to him upon verification and suitable conditions, including furnishing a bond.

Conclusion
The judgment affirms that the customs authorities’ power to seize goods under Section 110 is an administrative act requiring a bona fide and reasonable belief at the time of seizure, and that subsequent documentation cannot retrospectively validate the transportation. The writ petition was dismissed, with directions for the release of the vehicle to its owner and for due process in any confiscation proceedings.