9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Alleged mis-declaration of unaccompanied baggages leading to seizure; Petition for release of seized goods under Writ of Mandamus; Discrepancy in valuation of goods; Applicability of Customs Act, 1962 provisions; Maintainability of writ petitions; Nature of seized goods; Confiscation proceedings under Customs Act, 1962. Analysis: The petitioners filed writ petitions seeking the release of their seized unaccompanied baggages, alleging mis-declaration by the respondents. The petitioners requested a Writ of Mandamus to direct the release of goods and halt further arbitrary actions. The value of goods was disputed, with the respondents valuing them significantly higher after investigation. The petitioners argued based on a precedent that the adjudicating authority should determine market value before releasing goods under Customs Act, 1962 provisions. The respondents contended that the writ petitions were not maintainable due to the absence of the Union of India as a party. They argued that the seized goods were not domestic articles but commercial goods subject to confiscation under Customs Act, 1962 sections 108 to 110. The respondents had initiated confiscation proceedings under sections 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, opposing the relief sought by the petitioners. After considering both sides, the court deemed the relief sought premature as the seized goods were part of ongoing confiscation proceedings. The court directed the respondents to conclude the investigation within four weeks and release the goods upon deposit by the petitioners. Specific deposit amounts were stipulated for each petitioner, along with the requirement of a bank guarantee for the remaining valuation balance. These conditions were subject to the outcome of the confiscation proceedings. The writ petitions were disposed of accordingly, and related applications were closed.
|
