Form No.J(2) CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI APPELLATE SIDE Present : The Hon’ble Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury WPA 1842 of 2026 M/s Maurya Food Products Versus Union of India & Ors. For the petitioner : Mr. Pulkrit Verma Ms. Pooja Sah Mr. A.R. Chowdhury Mr. Sandip Guha Roy For the respondents : Mr. Ratan Banik Heard on : 09.09.2026 Judgment on : 09.09.2026 Raja Basu Chowdhury, J. (Oral): 1. Challenging the seizure list issued under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and the order dated 11th August, 2026 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Customs CCP, West Bengal, Kolkata rejecting the application for provisinal release under Section 110A of the said Act, the instant writ petition has been filed. 2. Mr. Verma, learned advocate appearing in support of the writ petition has drawn attention of this Court to the seizure list and would submit that the foundation for seizing the Betel Nuts was 2 WPA 1842 of 2026 that the same was believed to be of foreign origin. Incidentally, in the show-cause the respondents themselves having returned the finding that on the basis of the petitioner’s request, the re-sampling of the Betel Nuts was done on 2nd January, 2026 in presence of authorized representative of the petitioner and the same was sent to ADRF, Mangaluru for determination of the Country of origin and chemical analysis of the seized Betel Nuts, and the report thereof dated 23 January, 2026 of ADRF, Mangaluru confirming that the representative samples of Betel Nuts are mostly resembles to areca nuts/ Betel nuts of India, the very foundations for seizing the goods do not survive and the respondents ought to have release the goods by an order of provisional release under Section 110A of the said Act. He would submit that in identical set of facts, a coordinate Bench of this Court in an unreported judgment delivered in WPA 1247 of 2026 in the case of M/s. Kumar Enterprise vs. The Union of India & ors., had been pleased to interfere with the order rejecting prayer for provisional release and allow release upon the petitioner furnishing necessary bonds to the satisfaction of the customs authorities. According to him, this case is no different from the Judgment delivered in the case of M/s. Kumar Enterprise(supra) as the foundation for formation of reasons to believe that the areca nuts are for foreign origin do not survive. As such this Court should also direct release of the Areca nuts. 3 WPA 1842 of 2026 3. Mr. Banik, learned advocate appears for the respondents. He would submit that the case at hand is different from the case consider by the coordinate Bench in the Judgment delivered in the case of M/s. Kumar Enterprise (supra). He has also drawn the attention of this Court to page No. 65 of the writ petition and has referred to paragraph 4.6 of the show-cause dated 9th April, 2026 issued under Section 124 of the said Act. According to him, the self-same testing agency had previously tested the samples of seized Betel Nuts so as to determine the country of origin and the chemical analysis of the seized Betel Nuts. The said test report dated 23rd October, 2025 of the testing agency confirmed that the representative sample of Betel Nuts are mostly resembled to areca nuts of Indonesia and that about 13%of the nuts are infested with moulds. According to him in the peculiar facts, no interference is called for especially when the petitioner has an alternative remedy in the form of an appeal. According to him, on the aforesaid ground, the writ petition should be dismissed with costs. 4. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having considered the materials on record, I find that in the instant case, the Betel Nuts in question were seized on the ground the same was of foreign origin. Such fact would corroborate from the seizer memo dated 10th October, 2025. Records would also reveal that on the self-same date, immediately on the seizure, the Betel Nuts were sampled and the same were sent for determination 4 WPA 1842 of 2026 of the country of origin and chemical analysis to ARDF, Mangaluru, and the test report dated 23rd October, 2025 confirms that representative samples to mostly resemble Arca nuts/ Betel Nuts of Indonesia, and approximately 13% of nuts were infested with mould inside. I find the self-same show-cause also records that at the request of the petitioner, the Areca nuts were resampled after two months on 2nd January, 2026, and was sent to self-same testing agency. The subsequent test report dated 23rd January, 2026, however, confirmed that the representative samples are mostly resembled to areca nuts/ Betel Nuts of India. There is, however, no finding on this occasion as to whether any of the areca nuts had been infested with mould inside by the said agency. Admittedly, two sets samples were taken from the seized areca nuts, simply because the second sample showed that the same resembles Indian origin, in my view, the same cannot be a ground for this Court to interfere especially when in the first sample, the goods were found to be of foreign origin and had mould inside. This apart, it may be noted that in paragraph 4.7, of the show-cause it has been recorded that the Betel Nuts which were sampled and tested by the National Food Laboratory, FSSAI, Kolkata returned the test results dated 14th January, 2026, which indicates that the nuts are damaged by mould and insects and damaged nuts are more than the prescribed limit and hence, the sample is sub- 5 WPA 1842 of 2026 standard and unsafe under Sections 3 (1)(zx) &3(1)(zz)(ix) of FSS Act, 2006. 5. In the peculiar facts, I find that the Judgment delivered in the case of Kumar Enterprise(supra) does not come in petitioner’s assistance. This is not a clear case where the areca nuts were found to be of Indian origin. Further the nuts are also unsafe for human consumption. The petitioner to bypass the statutory remedy, has approached this Court. The conduct of the petitioner is not appreciated. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed leaving it open to avail statutory remedy if so advised. 7. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of requisite formalities. (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.) sayandeep A.R.CT