Internal code mismatch alone cannot justify seizure of transit goods when invoice and transport documents otherwise match.

Seizure of mobile handsets in transit was held unjustified where the consignment was supported by invoice, delivery note, Form 49 and consignment note, and physical verification showed no mismatch in the goods themselves. The only discrepancy was an internal code number difference, which was not shown to indicate a different model or any evasion from Noida. As the material relied on for detention was speculative and unsupported by evidence, the seizure lacked a legal basis. The goods were therefore liable to be released without security.

---

---

Issues: Whether seizure and detention of mobile phone handsets was lawful when the goods were covered by invoice and other transport documents, but there was a mismatch between the invoice code number and the code numbers found on the handsets.

Analysis: The goods were found accompanied by invoice, delivery note, Form 49 and consignment note, and no difference in the model of the handsets was found on physical verification. The code number was treated as an internal number only, and the record did not show that the goods were of a different model or that the movement was not from Noida. The discrepancy relied upon for detention was unsupported by material and rested on conjecture. Since the consignment was otherwise covered by the same invoice and no adverse inference was drawn regarding the other items, the seizure lacked a legal basis.

Conclusion: The seizure and detention were illegal and unwarranted, and the goods were liable to be released without security.

Ratio Decidendi: A mere internal code mismatch, without any difference in the goods covered by the invoice or other material showing evasion, does not justify seizure or detention of goods in transit.

---