Calcutta High Court Holds Customs Can Independently Sample Imported Food For Tariff Classification, Fraud Investigation
The Calcutta High Court has held that Customs authorities can independently draw samples of imported food articles under Section 144 of the Customs Act, 1962, for customs examination, tariff classification, valuation and investigation of fiscal fraud, even where the goods are food items.
A Division Bench of Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj and Justice Sudip Deb held that the Customs Act and the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act) operate in distinct, concurrent and non-conflicting legislative fields and must be read harmoniously.
The Court set aside a Single Judge's order which had declared Customs sampling illegal and held FSSAI-authorised officers to be the sole competent authority to draw samples from imported food articles for every purpose.
Background
M/s Credence International had imported three containers of areca nuts from Belawan Port, Indonesia, weighing 84.48 metric tonnes, with an assessable value of ₹1,12,21,197. The consignment was declared as “Roasted Areca Nuts” under Customs Tariff Heading 20081991.
Based on specific intelligence that dried areca nuts had been misdeclared as roasted areca nuts to circumvent Minimum Import Price (MIP) conditions and CBIC tariff values, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Kolkata, issued an Alert Notice on September 15, 2025, and prevented the consignment from being routed to the Food Import Clearance System (FICS) on ICEGATE.
Customs and DRI officers examined the cargo and drew samples under Section 144 of the Customs Act. The samples were sent to the National Food Laboratory (NFL), Kolkata, which issued test reports on September 26, 2025, declaring them unsafe due to mould, insect infestation and excessive aflatoxin content.
The goods were subsequently seized under Section 110(1) of the Customs Act on October 7, 2025.
Upon the importer's request for re-testing, samples were sent to the Central Revenues Control Laboratory (CRCL), New Delhi. The laboratory initially reported that the goods were “other than roasted areca nut”. Its final reports dated March 12 and 13, 2026, confirmed the alleged misdeclaration and the goods' unfitness for human consumption.
Single Judge's Order
Challenging the sampling and seizure proceedings, Credence approached the High Court seeking fresh sampling through FSSAI-authorised officers under the FSS Act.
On July 15, 2026, the Single Judge allowed the writ petitions, holding FSSAI officers to be the sole competent authority to draw samples from imported food articles. The Single Judge declared Customs sampling illegal and void, quashed the NFL and CRCL reports, and directed fresh sampling for referral testing at CFL Kolkata.
The Single Judge also issued directions concerning videography, laboratory timelines, release of cargo within 24 hours and waiver of demurrage.
Aggrieved by the order, the Additional Director General, DRI, Kolkata, and the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Customs House, Kolkata, preferred separate intra-court appeals.
Findings Of The Division Bench
The Division Bench held that the Customs Act is a fiscal, border-enforcement and regulatory statute governing import control, tariff classification, valuation, revenue protection and investigation of customs offences. The FSS Act, on the other hand, is a public health enactment designed to ensure that food articles entering domestic markets are safe and wholesome.
The Court observed that neither statute eclipses the other at the border. It referred to Section 25(1)(iii) of the FSS Act, which prohibits the import of food in contravention of the FSS Act or any other law for the time being in force, including the Customs Act.
The Court held that Section 144 of the Customs Act expressly authorises the proper officer to take samples of imported goods for examination, testing, valuation or any other purpose under the Act. It further held that DRI officers, being designated proper officers under Section 2(34) read with CBIC Notification No. 26/2022-Customs (N.T.), are empowered to exercise these sampling powers.
The Court observed that determining the true identity and tariff classification of imported goods, including whether a consignment consists of dried areca nuts under CTH 080280 or roasted areca nuts under CTH 20081991, is an antecedent requirement under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
It held that Customs authorities must establish the actual identity of a commodity to detect misdeclaration, duty evasion or circumvention of MIP restrictions. Food safety legislation cannot be invoked to displace investigations into tariff classification and fiscal fraud.
The Court further held that FSSAI's exclusive sampling procedure for routine food import clearance commences only after a Bill of Entry is transmitted and routed to FICS on ICEGATE. Where a Bill of Entry is held under an intelligence-driven Alert Notice before such routing, FSSAI does not acquire exclusive sampling jurisdiction to the total exclusion of Customs officers.
The Division Bench clarified that Customs authorities do not issue administrative no-objection certificates certifying food as fit for domestic market release. However, they retain their statutory powers to enforce import prohibitions, investigate fiscal fraud and seize goods under the Customs Act.
The Court also held that executive instructions and administrative guidelines concerning routine food import clearance cannot curtail statutory powers conferred on Customs officers under Section 144 of the Customs Act.
The Court observed that due weight had not been accorded to the concurrent technical findings of the NFL, Kolkata, and CRCL, New Delhi, which had independently reported misdeclaration and unsafe conditions in the consignment.
It held that evidentiary and procedural challenges concerning sampling, laboratory testing methodology, chain of custody and admissibility of reports should be adjudicated within the statutory Customs proceedings, particularly during adjudication of show-cause notices under Sections 122 and 124 of the Customs Act.
The Court held that quashing sampling proceedings and laboratory reports prematurely under Article 226, before statutory adjudication, would disrupt the statutory mechanism and exceed the settled scope of judicial review.
It also observed that the directions issued by the Single Judge for compulsory fresh sampling, videography, fixed laboratory timelines, cargo release and demurrage waivers travelled beyond the prayers in the writ petition and substituted statutory administrative procedures.
Decision
The Division Bench set aside the Single Judge's order to the extent that it declared FSSAI-authorised officers to be the sole competent authority to draw samples for every purpose and quashed Customs sampling and the NFL and CRCL laboratory reports.
It also vacated the directions for compulsory fresh sampling, videography, fixed laboratory timelines, cargo release and demurrage waivers.
The Court held that a proper officer of Customs may lawfully draw samples under Section 144 of the Customs Act for customs examination, tariff classification, valuation and investigation, even where the imported goods are food articles.
The Customs authorities were directed to proceed with the pending show-cause notice adjudication strictly in accordance with law.
The appeals and connected applications were disposed of without any order as to costs.
Advocate for Directorate of Revenue Intelligence: Mr. Kaushik Dey, Mr. Tapan Bhanja and Ms. Debjani Halder, Advocates.
Advocate for Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Customs House: Mr. Bhaskar Prosad Banerjee and Mr. Anurag Roy, Advocates.
Advocate for Credence: Mr. A.K. Jayraj, Mr. Akash Dutta and Mr. Aditya Dutta, Advocates
Advocate for FSSAI: Ms. Tannistha Singh, Ms. Paramita Banerjee and Mr. Rohan Raj, Advocates (MCO Legals – Meharia & Company).