Disposal of seized goods upheld where no actual prejudice from lack of prior notice under customs law was shown.

Disposal of seized imported goods during pendency of a writ petition was upheld where the petitioner had itself sought disposal of perishable goods and the department acted under the governing circular. A challenge for want of prior notice under Section 150 of the Customs Act, 1962 failed because the petitioner did not show actual prejudice, including a realistic possibility of obtaining a better sale price. The Court noted that the sale fetched a substantial amount and that no illegality was made out. It also recorded that subsequent confiscation and penalty proceedings rendered the writ petition infructuous, while protecting the sale proceeds pending appellate proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether the disposal of the seized goods during the pendency of the writ petition without prior notice to the petitioner was illegal and whether any relief survived after the subsequent developments.

Analysis: The challenge was to the sale of the seized imported goods while the writ petition against provisional release was pending. The Court noted that the petitioner had itself requested disposal of the perishable goods and that the departmental action was taken under the governing circular. The Court further held that a challenge based on want of prior notice under Section 150 of the Customs Act, 1962 had to be tested on prejudice, and the petitioner had to show that prior notice would have resulted in a better sale price. In view of the declared invoice value and the sale to NCCF for a substantial amount, no prejudice was shown. The Court also recorded that the adjudication proceedings had culminated in confiscation and penalty, rendering the writ petition infructuous.

Conclusion: The Court found no illegality in the disposal of the seized goods and held that the writ petition had become infructuous. The substantive challenge failed, though directions were issued to protect the sale proceeds pending the outcome of appellate proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The petition was disposed of with the challenge to the sale rejected on merits, while safeguarding the sale proceeds for adjustment depending on the result of the appellate proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: A challenge to disposal of seized goods for want of prior notice fails unless the challenger demonstrates actual prejudice, including a realistic possibility of a higher sale price, and disposal in accordance with the governing circular will not be interfered with in the absence of such prejudice.

---