Provisional release of confiscated prohibited goods under Section 125 allowed on identical terms despite notifications; confiscation stayed pending challenge

Provisional release of confiscated prohibited goods was allowed despite departmental notifications declaring the goods prohibited from a specified date; an order under Section 125 was noted as the statutory mechanism for confiscation but confiscation was stayed and goods were permitted provisional release on the same conditional terms applied in other cases. The controversy over a subsequent executive notification affecting the status of the goods was recorded, but the operative effect was preservation of provisional release pending resolution of the notifications and related proceedings.

---

---

Issues:
Confiscation of goods despite pending court matter, interpretation of Notifications dated 01.04.2020 and 18.03.2021, provisional release of goods, disposal of Special Leave Petitions and interlocutory applications.

Confiscation of Goods:
The Supreme Court addressed the issue of goods being confiscated by the Department despite the matter being pending before the Court. The learned ASG requested a stay on the confiscation, which was granted by the Court. It was noted that orders for provisional release of goods had been issued in the past by the Court, and the Department was instructed to stay its actions in this case as well.

Interpretation of Notifications:
The Court discussed the Notifications dated 01.04.2020 and 18.03.2021, which were the subject of controversy. The Department claimed that the goods were prohibited from 01.04.2020 onwards unless an order was made under Section 125. However, the Court allowed the goods involved in the petitions to be provisionally released based on terms set in previous cases and highlighted the importance of the order dated 18.09.2020 in this regard.

Provisional Release of Goods:
In light of the above discussion, the Court ordered the provisional release of the goods subject to the controversy surrounding the Notifications. The goods were allowed to be released on terms similar to those in previous cases, emphasizing consistency in approach. The Court stayed the confiscation of the goods and disposed of the Special Leave Petitions accordingly.

Disposal of Special Leave Petitions and Interlocutory Applications:
The Special Leave Petitions were disposed of by the Court following the resolution of the issues related to the confiscation and provisional release of goods. Additionally, any pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of as part of the overall judgment. The matter was concluded with the resolution of the key issues and appropriate orders issued by the Court.

---