Beneficial liberalisation and goods in transit prevented confiscation under the earlier licensing restriction.

Where confiscation proceedings were still pending when the 2002 Order liberalised licensing and movement restrictions, the later beneficial regime was applied to the matter, so the earlier restriction could not sustain confiscation. The document also states that goods intercepted while still in transit had not been delivered to the buyer; the seller remained the owner for the relevant purpose, and a vehicle carrying goods was not treated as storage. On that basis, no contravention warranting confiscation was made out, and the confiscation order was described as unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the removal of licensing requirements and movement restrictions under the 2002 Order applied to a pending confiscation proceeding arising from a seizure made before the Order came into force; (ii) Whether the seized goods remained in transit and the seller retained ownership at the time of seizure so that no contravention warranting confiscation was established.

Issue (i): Whether the removal of licensing requirements and movement restrictions under the 2002 Order applied to a pending confiscation proceeding arising from a seizure made before the Order came into force?

Analysis: The seizure had taken place before the 2002 Order came into force, but the confiscation proceeding was still pending when the new Order became operative. The Court treated the 2002 Order as a beneficial change and applied the principle of retrospective operation to pending matters where the earlier restriction had been substituted by a later liberalised regime. On that basis, the earlier licensing restriction could not be relied upon to sustain confiscation.

Conclusion: The 2002 Order applied to the pending proceeding, and the confiscation order could not be sustained on the basis of the earlier restriction.

Issue (ii): Whether the seized goods remained in transit and the seller retained ownership at the time of seizure so that no contravention warranting confiscation was established?

Analysis: Under the Sale of Goods Act, a seller remains an unpaid seller where the price has not been finally received and a negotiable instrument accepted conditionally has been dishonoured. Goods remain in course of transit until delivery is taken by the buyer or the buyer's agent. As the consignment had not been delivered and the truck had only been intercepted en route, the transit had not ended and the seller continued to be the owner for the relevant purpose. A vehicle carrying goods does not amount to storage.

Conclusion: The goods were still in transit, the seller remained the owner, and no contravention justifying confiscation was made out.

Final Conclusion: The confiscation order was unsustainable in law, the bank guarantee was directed to be cancelled, and the writ petition succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Where confiscation proceedings remain pending and the legal regime governing licensing and movement of goods is beneficially substituted, the later liberalised order can govern the pending matter; moreover, goods in transit before delivery remain outside the buyer's possession and no confiscation can be founded solely on the earlier licensing restriction.

---