Indefinite detention of imported goods without formal seizure is impermissible; provisional release must follow statutory safeguards during origin verification.

Imported goods detained without formal seizure cannot be held indefinitely while customs verifies country of origin. The Customs Act scheme distinguishes seizure under section 110, inventory preparation, return of seized goods on expiry of the prescribed period, and provisional release under section 110A where seizure has occurred. The Court noted that the goods had remained detained for over two years and that the origin inquiry under the Customs (Administration of Rules of Origin under Trade Agreements) Rules, 2020 must operate within its timeline. Prolonged detention without using the statutory mechanism was impermissible, so provisional release was directed against a bank guarantee and undertaking, and the inquiry had to be completed within the stipulated period.

---

---

Issues: Whether imported goods that were being detained without formal seizure could be directed to be provisionally released pending customs inquiry into the country of origin.

Analysis: The dispute concerned goods imported under a bill of entry and detained for a prolonged period while the customs authorities questioned the country-of-origin certificate and sought supporting movement documents. The statutory scheme under the Customs Act, 1962 contemplates seizure under Section 110, preparation of inventory under Section 110(1A), return of seized goods upon expiry of the prescribed period under Section 110(2), and provisional release under Section 110A when seizure has occurred. The Court noted that no formal seizure had been effected, yet the goods had remained detained for over two years. It further observed that the inquiry under the Customs (Administration of Rules of Origin under Trade Agreements) Rules, 2020 is subject to the governing timeline and cannot continue indefinitely while withholding the goods. In these circumstances, prolonged detention without resort to the statutory mechanism was held to be impermissible.

Conclusion: The goods were directed to be provisionally released in favour of the petitioners, subject to furnishing a bank guarantee and undertaking, while the customs inquiry was required to be completed within the stipulated period.

Ratio Decidendi: Customs authorities cannot keep imported goods under indefinite detention without formal seizure and then avoid the statutory safeguards and timelines governing seizure, provisional release, and rule-of-origin verification.

---