Customs seizure authority challenge led to interim stay and release of goods on bond and bank guarantee conditions.

The article concerns a challenge to a customs seizure memo on the ground that the Inspector, SIIB lacked authority to order seizure under the IPR imported goods enforcement regime, where authorisation was said to lie only with the Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner of Customs. It also notes the contention that the seizure reflected a predetermined approach and no independent application of mind because it followed superior authority directions. Pending counter affidavit and rejoinder, notice was issued and interim protection granted. The operation of the seizure memo was stayed, and the seized goods were directed to be released on furnishing a bond for their value and a bank guarantee of 25% of that amount.

---

---

Issues: Whether the seizure memo was without jurisdiction because the Inspector, SIIB was not authorised to pass the seizure order, and whether the seizure was vitiated by a predetermined approach and absence of independent application of mind.

Analysis: The order records the petitioner's challenge to the seizure action on the ground that, under the IPR imported goods enforcement regime, only the Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner of Customs could authorise seizure. The Court also noticed the contention that the seizure followed a superior authority's direction and was therefore made without independent consideration by the seizing officer. Pending counter affidavit and rejoinder, the Court directed notice and granted interim protection.

Outcome: The operation and effect of the impugned seizure memo were stayed, and release of the seized goods was directed on furnishing a bond for the value of the goods and a bank guarantee of 25% of that amount.

---