Disputed identity of imported goods barred writ release, leaving customs adjudication to proceed with a time-bound direction.

Disputed identity of imported goods prevented the High Court from directing release in writ jurisdiction, because customs authorities treated the articles as possible antiques over 100 years old and the import declaration did not match the description of the goods. On that basis, the Court declined to order interim release and left the customs dispute for adjudication. To reduce hardship from demurrage, it directed the customs authority to complete adjudication within two months, provided the petitioner cooperated with the process.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in view of the disputed identity of the imported goods, the Court should direct their release in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The identity of the imported goods was in dispute, with the customs authorities asserting that the articles may be antiques exceeding 100 years in age and relying on the relevant antiquities law. The import declaration was also found to be incomplete and not matching the description of the articles. In these circumstances, the Court held that it would not be proper to exercise writ jurisdiction to order release of the goods. At the same time, to avoid hardship from demurrage, the Court directed the customs authority to complete adjudication within two months, subject to the petitioner cooperating with the process.

Conclusion: No direction for release of the goods was granted, and the matter was confined to expeditious completion of adjudication.

---