Provisional release of seized imported goods requires a formal application to the competent customs authority before writ relief is sought.

A writ petition for release of seized imported goods was premature because the importer had not first made a formal application for provisional release before the Commissioner of Customs. A representation to the investigating authority was not treated as a substitute for invoking the competent authority's jurisdiction. Since the dispute at this stage concerned only provisional release and not the merits of the investigation, the Court required the importer to file a proper application before the Commissioner, who was directed to consider and decide it expeditiously in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition seeking release of the imported goods was premature and not maintainable in the absence of a formal application for provisional release before the Commissioner of Customs, and whether the importer had to first move the competent authority for such relief.

Analysis: The goods had been seized during investigation by the revenue authorities, and the dispute at this stage was confined to provisional release rather than the merits of the investigation. The record showed no formal request for provisional release before the Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin. A representation made to the investigative authority for release of the goods could not be treated as an application for provisional release. In such circumstances, the Court held that the writ prayer was premature, since the competent authority had not yet been asked to exercise jurisdiction and consider the request in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The writ petition was held to be premature and not maintainable at that stage, and the importer was directed to file a proper application for provisional release before the Commissioner of Customs, who was required to decide it expeditiously.

---