Customs officers' search and seizure upheld, appellant's challenge dismissed. Premature legality arguments not addressed.

The court dismissed the appellant's challenge of search and seizure jurisdiction, upholding the authority of customs officers to conduct searches and seize goods believed to be liable for confiscation. The appellant's arguments regarding the legality of the search and seizure were considered premature as no final assessment had been completed. The court emphasized that such factual disputes cannot be addressed under writ jurisdiction. The goods were released to the appellant under certain conditions, with the court clarifying that the final court order would not hinder authorities from conducting the assessment after notifying the appellant. The appeal was disposed of without prejudice to the appellant's right to raise further points post final assessment.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge of search and seizure jurisdiction, validity of search and seizure, authority to search and seize goods, legality of search and seizure, premature contention regarding sample testing, final assessment timing, disposal of appeal.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged the search and seizure as invalid and beyond jurisdiction, seeking a writ of prohibition and stay on further proceedings. The appellant, acting as a letter of authority holder for an import license, imported goods and was aggrieved by a search at its office, leading to seizure of documents and goods. The appellant contended that the seized items were not secreted and the authorities had no right to seize them. A Receiver was appointed to take possession of the goods, later released upon furnishing a bank guarantee. The appellant's grievance was that the search and seizure were illegal.

The Customs Act empowers officers to search for goods liable for confiscation or relevant documents. The appellant's argument that the seized items were not secreted was deemed inconsequential, as the authorities have the right to search and seize if they believe goods are liable for confiscation. The customs authorities alleged that the appellant's actions were misleading and aimed at tax exemption, leading to ongoing investigations. The appellant's objection to sample testing without their presence was considered premature, as no final assessment had been made.

The court held that the appellant's contentions were premature and not to be considered at that stage, as no final assessment had been completed. The court emphasized that such disputed factual issues cannot be entertained under writ jurisdiction. The goods were released to the appellant, who sold them off. An interim order clarified that the final court order would not prevent authorities from making the assessment after notifying the appellant. The bank guarantee provided by the appellant was to be renewed until further court orders.

The appeal was disposed of accordingly, with no prejudice to the appellant's right to raise certain points after the final assessment, if entitled by law.

---