Customs seizure and summons stage: writ intervention was premature, and release order was set aside pending adjudication.

Writ interference at the summons-and-seizure stage under the Customs Act was held premature where the noticee had not appeared in response to repeated summons. The court noted that a summoned person must attend and answer in an ongoing enquiry, and that judicial review is limited before adjudication. It also held that seizure may rest on the proper officer's reasonable belief, supported by material, without a detailed merits determination at that stage. On that basis, the direction to release the seized cash was set aside and the statutory enquiry was allowed to continue, with liberty to raise factual and legal objections in response to a fresh summons.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition seeking interference at the stage of summons and seizure was maintainable when the noticee had not appeared in response to the summons issued under the Customs Act, 1962; (ii) Whether the order of the Single Judge directing release of the seized cash could stand in the light of the statutory power of seizure based on reasonable belief and the pending adjudicatory process.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition seeking interference at the stage of summons and seizure was maintainable when the noticee had not appeared in response to the summons issued under the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The summons were issued under the Customs Act, 1962 for the respondent's appearance and statement in an ongoing enquiry relating to seizure and suspected smuggling-related proceeds. A person summoned under the Act is bound to attend and state the truth, and the proceedings are at a pre-adjudication stage. The failure to respond to repeated summons, followed by immediate resort to writ proceedings, rendered the challenge premature and inappropriate for interference under writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The writ petition was premature and not maintainable at that stage.

Issue (ii): Whether the order of the Single Judge directing release of the seized cash could stand in the light of the statutory power of seizure based on reasonable belief and the pending adjudicatory process.

Analysis: Under the Customs Act, 1962, seizure is permissible where the proper officer has reasonable belief supported by material that the goods are liable to confiscation. At the seizure stage, the sufficiency of material is not for judicial review, and a detailed determination on merits is not required before adjudication. The Court also held that the Single Judge's approach overlooked the statutory scheme and the mandatory nature of the summons-based enquiry, making the direction for provisional release unsustainable on the facts before it.

Conclusion: The direction to release the seized cash was set aside and the seizure-related proceedings were allowed to continue in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The interference by the Single Judge was overturned, the earlier order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the statutory enquiry stage with liberty to the respondent to raise all factual and legal objections in response to a fresh summons.

Ratio Decidendi: At the stage of summons and initial seizure under the Customs Act, 1962, writ interference is unwarranted where the noticee has not cooperated with the enquiry and the officer's action rests on reasonable belief supported by material, since the sufficiency of that material is not open to judicial review before adjudication.

---