Naim Ali Mallick Alias Naim Ali Mullick Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) & Ors. (Calcutta High Court)
This intra-court appeal arose from an order dated 4 December 2025 dismissing a writ petition challenging seizure of gold pieces (approximately 154.800 grams) and cash amounting to ₹19,77,500 under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant, Chief Staff at a HALLMARK Assay Centre operating as M/s Chennai Touch in Hooghly, held a valid trade licence and was engaged in testing gold purity and trading in old gold ornaments.
On 18 January 2024, Customs officials entered the premises, seized two gold pieces allegedly lacking foreign markings and claimed to be of Indian origin, along with cash, and transported the items to Customs House, Kolkata, where a Panchnama was prepared. The appellant was briefly detained and his statement was recorded, allegedly under duress. A Show-Cause Notice dated 15 July 2024 was received on 7 August 2024, following an extension dated 10 July 2024 under Section 110(2), purportedly granted by the Superintendent of Customs. The appellant subsequently lodged an FIR alleging forgery of the extension documents.
The appellant contended that the extension letter was forged or tampered with, citing mismatched logo, anomalous signature placement, and his absence from Customs House supported by mobile tower data. It was argued that blank papers were signed under duress and misused. Reliance was placed on the proviso to Section 110(2), asserting that only the Commissioner could record reasons in writing and communicate extension before expiry. The appellant alleged that no summons under Section 108 was issued and that the Single Judge erred in not directing forensic examination or considering e-office records. Relief sought included quashing of seizure, release of goods, and forensic and mobile data probes.
