Bombay High Court Directs Authority To Consider Provisional Release Of Seized Goods

Bombay High Court Directs Authority To Consider Provisional Release Of Seized Goods

The Court opined that even during the pendency of proceedings before the adjudicating authority, such authority was conferred with the discretionary power to allow provisional release

The Bombay High Court directed adjudicating authority to consider the prayers of the Petitioners for provisional release of the seized goods u/S 110A of the Customs Act, 1962.

Multiple writ petitions involving similar facts and the question of the law were placed before the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay, comprising Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice G. S. Kulkarni.

The Petitioners had prayed before the appropriate authorities for provisional release of the seized goods but instead, show-cause notices u/S 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 were issued, calling upon the Petitioners to explain why the seized goods should not be confiscated.

The primary issue, which was dealt with and accordingly answered by this Court, was whether during the pendency of proceedings u/S 124 of the Act, consideration of an application for provisional release should be barred.

The Petitioners contended that notwithstanding the pendency of proceedings u/S 124 of the Act, there was nothing in the Act that precluded consideration of an application for provisional release of goods u/S 110A of the Act. On the other hand, the Respondent – Authorities submitted that the question of considering an application for provisional release of the seized goods could not arise, once proceedings u/S 124 of the Act had been initiated.

The Court in order to deal with the issue present at hand minutely observed the relevant provisions and concluded by observing:

"The legal position emerging from a bare reading of the aforesaid statutory provisions is that in default of issuance of notice under section 124 of the Act within six months of seizure, the person from whose possession the goods are seized can claim, as a matter of right, return of the seized goods; and in such a case, in view of the second proviso to sub-section (2) of section 110, the specified period of six months to issue a notice would not apply, meaning thereby that a notice could follow even thereafter."

The Court opined that by way of an amendment in Section 110A, it was clear that even during the pendency of proceedings before the adjudicating authority, such authority was conferred with the discretionary power to allow provisional release.

The Court, therefore, directed the adjudicating authority to consider the prayers for provisional release of the seized goods made by the Petitioners by representations and further granted liberty to the adjudicating authority to carry forward the proceedings initiated u/S 124 of the Act in accordance with the law.