Naim Ali Mallick Alias Naim Ali Mullick vs The Principal Commissioner Of Customs
2026 Latest Caselaw 717 Cal/2

Calcutta High Court

Naim Ali Mallick Alias Naim Ali Mullick vs The Principal Commissioner Of Customs on 10 February, 2026

Author: Rajarshi Bharadwaj

Bench: Rajarshi Bharadwaj

             IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
            CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
                      (Original Side)




                               Reserved on     : 29.01.2026.
                               Pronounced on : 10.02.2026


                    APO 103 OF 2025
                           With
                   IA No. GA 1 of 2025

NAIM ALI MALLICK ALIAS NAIM ALI MULLICK
                                                  ...Appellant
                              -Vs-

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
(PREVENTIVE) & ORS.
                                                ...Respondents

Present:-

Mr. Sukanta Chakraborty, Adv.

Mr. Abdul Hamid Molla, Adv.

Md. Abdul Halim, Adv.

Mr. Sahil Hamid, Adv.

Mr.Biswasdeep Dey, Adv.

...for the appellant

Mr. Uday Sankar Bhattacharyya, Adv. Mr. K.K. Maity, Adv.

..... for the respondents

Coram: THE HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, And THE HON'BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR

Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J:

1. This intra-court appeal by the writ petitioner is directed against the order

dated 4thDecember 2025 passed by the Hon'ble Justice OM Narayan Rai in

W.P.O. No. 496 of 2025, whereby the writ petition challenging the seizure of gold

pieces (approx. 154.800 grams) and cash (Rs.19,77,500) under Section 110 of

the Customs Act, 1962, was dismissed.

2. The facts in a nutshell are that the appellant is the Chief Staff at

HALLMARK Assay Centre (operating as M/s. Chennai Touch), located at Village

Sripatipur, P.O. Sheakhala, P.S. Chanditala, Hooghly, with a valid trade license

from Sripatipur Ilipur Gram Panchayat. The establishment tests gold purity and

trades in old gold ornaments. On 18th January 2024, at around 10:00 a.m.,

Customs officials entered the appellant's premises at HALLMARK Assay Center

in Sripatipur, Sheakhala, Hooghly, seized two gold pieces weighing

approximately 154.80 grams (lacking foreign markings and thus claimed to be of

Indian origin) along with Rs.19,77,500/- in cash, transported the items to the

Customs House on Strand Road, Kolkata, where a Panchnama was prepared,

briefly detained the appellant and recorded his statement under alleged duress.

Subsequently, a Show-Cause Notice dated 15th July 2024 was issued which was

received by the appellant on 7th August 2024. Such Show-Cause notice was

issued following a purported extension of the six-month period under Section

110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, granted on 10th July 2024 by the

Superintendent of Customs. Thereafter, the appellant lodged an FIR alleging

forgery of extension documents. The Single Judge, after interim orders on

7th August, 12th November and 26th November 2025, along with review of

affidavits and records, upheld the proceedings vide the impugned order.

3. The Learned Counsel for the appellant assails the impugned order on

multiple fronts. Primarily, it is contended that the extension letter dated

10th July 2024 purportedly issued by the Superintendent rather than the

Commissioner stands forged or tampered with, as evidenced by a mismatched

logo, anomalous signature placement and the appellant's verifiable absence from

Customs House (corroborated by mobile tower data). It is further alleged that

blank papers were signed by the appellant under duress on 18th January 2024

and subsequently misused. Strong reliance is placed on the proviso to Section

110(2), which mandates that reasons in writing be recorded solely by the

Commissioner and communicated to the owner before expiry and that the

subordinate officers lack such authority, as affirmed in I.J. Rao v. Bibhuti

Bhushan Bagh (1989) and Harbans Lal v. Collector (1993). It is further

submitted that the Single Judge erred in accepting these documents without

forensic verification from the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Kolkata,

while disregarding the affidavit-in-opposition, the anomalous sequence of SCN

dispatch (post-dating six months) and the respondents' failure to produce e-

office records. Notably, no summons under Section 108 was issued or

responded to, undermining any justification for extension. Therefore, the

appellant seeks for the quashing of the seizure, immediate release of goods and

directed probes into forensic and mobile data evidence.

4. Learned Counsel for the Customs authorities herein the revenue defended

the impugned order, submitting that the Commissioner approved the extension

on 10th July 2024 with recorded reasons such as investigation needs, with

intimation to the appellant in form of an acknowledged receipt. It is submitted

that the Show Cause Notice was validly issued within the extended period

approved by the Commissioner of Customs for ongoing investigation needs, with

due intimation to the appellant whose receipt was duly acknowledged, rendering

allegations of forgery or duress unsubstantiated as no timely prior complaint

regarding blank signatures had been raised. The Single Judge rightly scrutinized

the annexures, finding no evidence of tampering in the CBIC logo, endorsement

or receipt, while production of case records had been offered pursuant to interim

orders. However, the appellant's non-cooperation justified the extension.

Further, the seizure under Section 110(1) was lawful owing to suspected

smuggling, with merits pending statutory adjudication, making forensic or

mobile tower probes premature absent prima facie evidence, such that the writ

court correctly deferred to the ongoing proceedings.

5. Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records

this Court is of the opinion that the core dispute hinges on Section 110(2)'s

procedural compliance for extension and seizure validity issues essentially

factual, involving document authenticity, timelines and investigation sufficiency.

While the appellant raises serious allegations of tampering and authority excess,

these cannot be conclusively resolved in writ jurisdiction without a full fact-

finding inquiry. The Single Judge appropriately noted no "apparent reason to

doubt" genuineness post-affidavit review but refrained from final merits, as SCN

proceedings remain pending.

6. The Adjudicating Authority under the Customs Act serves as the

designated fact-finding body and any interference by this Court at the

interlocutory stage prior to completion of adjudication would amount to

usurping its statutory role. The appellant has failed to demonstrate irreparable

injury sufficient to warrant immediate release of the seized goods, whose

claimed Indian origin remains contestable pending investigation. Similarly,

claims for forensic examination and mobile tower verification, while meriting

scrutiny, properly fall within the domain of the Adjudicating Authority rather

than writ proceedings.

7. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is disposed of with following

directions:

In order to balance equities, the Adjudicating Authority shall expedite the

Show-Cause Notice proceedings, affording the appellant opportunity to

provide for evidence on forgery and procedural compliance claims and

conclude adjudication within three (03) months from today, with reasoned

order and notice to parties. The status quo on seized assets shall hold,

subject to remedies as mentioned under Section 110A of the Income Tax

Act, 1961.

8. There shall be no order as to costs.

9. Pending application i.e. GA 1 of 2025 is accordingly disposed of.

10. Urgent certified copy, if applied for, be supplied upon compliance with

requisite formalities.

(RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, J )

(UDAY KUMAR , J) Kolkata 10.02.2026