Calcutta High Court Directs Completion of Customs Gold Seizure Adjudication Within Three Months

Overview of the Case

In the matter of Naim Ali Mallick Alias Naim Ali Mullick Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) & Ors., the Calcutta High Court examined an intra-court appeal challenging an earlier judicial pronouncement dated 4 December 2025. The original writ petition had contested the confiscation of approximately 154.800 grams of gold items and currency totaling ₹19,77,500 pursuant to Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962.

The petitioner operated as Chief Staff at HALLMARK Assay Centre, which functioned under the business name M/s Chennai Touch in the Hooghly district. The establishment possessed legitimate trade authorization from the Sripatipur Ilipur Gram Panchayat and conducted business activities related to examining gold quality and dealing in pre-owned gold jewelry.

Factual Matrix of the Dispute

Seizure Operation Details

On 18 January 2024, around 10:00 AM, officers from the Customs department conducted an inspection at the petitioner's business location situated at Village Sripatipur, P.O. Sheakhala, P.S. Chanditala, Hooghly. During this operation, authorities confiscated two gold items collectively weighing approximately 154.80 grams, which reportedly bore no international identification marks and were consequently categorized as domestic origin items. Additionally, cash amounting to ₹19,77,500 was also seized.

Following the confiscation, the authorities transported the seized materials to the Customs House located on Strand Road, Kolkata, where formal Panchnama documentation was completed. The petitioner was temporarily detained, and his statement was recorded during this process, which he later alleged occurred under coercive circumstances.

Show-Cause Notice and Extension Controversy

A Show-Cause Notice bearing the date 15 July 2024 was dispatched to the petitioner, which he received on 7 August 2024. This notice was issued subsequent to a purported time extension under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, allegedly granted on 10 July 2024 by the Superintendent of Customs rather than the Commissioner.

The petitioner subsequently filed a First Information Report alleging document falsification concerning the extension paperwork. The learned Single Judge, after conducting hearings on 7 August, 12 November, and 26 November 2025, and after examining affidavits and documentary evidence, sustained the departmental action through the challenged order.

Contentions Advanced by the Appellant

Primary Arguments on Document Authenticity

The petitioner's legal representative challenged the impugned order on several substantive grounds. The central argument focused on the alleged fraudulent nature of the extension communication dated 10 July 2024, which was purportedly issued by the Superintendent instead of the Commissioner as mandated by statute.

The petitioner highlighted multiple discrepancies including mismatched official logo, irregular signature positioning, and documentary evidence of the petitioner's physical absence from the Customs House premises, corroborated through mobile network tower location data. The petitioner further asserted that blank documents were signed under duress on 18 January 2024, which were subsequently misused for unauthorized purposes.

Statutory Interpretation and Precedents

Significant reliance was placed on the proviso to Section 110(2), which specifically requires that written reasons must be recorded exclusively by the Commissioner and communicated to the owner prior to the expiration of the initial statutory period. The petitioner emphasized that subordinate officers lack such statutory authority, drawing support from judicial precedents including I.J. Rao v. Bibhuti Bhushan Bagh (1989) and Harbans Lal v. Collector (1993).

The appellant's counsel argued that the learned Single Judge committed an error in accepting these documents without directing forensic verification through the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Kolkata. The counsel also pointed out that the affidavit-in-opposition was inadequately addressed, the Show-Cause Notice was dispatched after the six-month statutory period, and the respondents failed to produce electronic office records for verification.

Procedural Irregularities

Another significant contention raised was the absence of any summons under Section 108, which the petitioner argued undermined any legitimate justification for the time extension. Consequently, the petitioner sought comprehensive relief including annulment of the seizure action, immediate return of confiscated materials, and directed investigation involving forensic document analysis and mobile location data verification.

Revenue's Defense and Justification

Authorization and Procedural Compliance

The legal representative for the Customs authorities vigorously defended the challenged order, maintaining that the Commissioner of Customs had duly approved the extension on 10 July 2024 after recording detailed reasons relating to ongoing investigation requirements. The department asserted that formal intimation was provided to the petitioner, whose receipt acknowledgment was properly documented.