2021 (6) TMI 1155 - HC - Customs

Release of seized goods - gold and bullion of foreign origin and certain other electronic goods - curtailing the power of the adjudicating authority with a direction to pass an order in a particular fashion - HELD THAT - Such a direction could not have been issued when the relief sought for by the writ petitioners was for allowing them to re-export the goods. Further more we find that the learned Writ Court has gone into certain factual aspects which are not normally gone into by a Writ Court prior to the commencement of the adjudication process. The appellants have made out a prima facie case and the writ appeals are admitted - List these writ appeals for further directions on 15.09.2021.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the writ Court can curtail the power of the adjudicating authority with a direction to pass an order in a particular fashion when considering the prayer for Writ of Mandamus to release seized goods?
2. Whether the Writ Court can delve into factual aspects normally not within its purview before the commencement of the adjudication process?

Analysis:
1. The legal issue in this case revolves around the power of the writ Court to direct the adjudicating authority on the manner of passing an order when considering a prayer for the release of seized goods. The Court observed that the direction issued by the Writ Court to pass an order in a specific manner might not align with the relief sought by the petitioners, which was to re-export the goods. The High Court, prima facie, found that such a direction could not have been issued, leading to the admission of the writ appeals and an order of interim stay.

2. Another significant issue raised in this judgment pertains to the extent of inquiry permissible for the Writ Court before the commencement of the adjudication process. The Court noted that the Writ Court had delved into factual aspects not typically within its jurisdiction at that stage. This observation highlights the boundaries of the Writ Court's interference in matters that are yet to undergo the adjudication process.

The judgment, delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice S. Ananthi, addresses these key issues concerning the powers and limitations of the Writ Court in directing the adjudicating authority and the scope of inquiry permissible before the adjudication process. The admission of the writ appeals and the order of interim stay signify the Court's initial findings on the prima facie case presented by the appellants. The case is set for further directions on a specified date, allowing for additional proceedings in this matter.