Transhipment goods and Section 11 notification limits led to quashing of confiscation and release for transhipment.

Goods meant for transhipment to Kabul were held to fall within Section 54 of the Customs Act, and confiscation could not be sustained in the absence of a Section 11 notification prohibiting the relevant import or export. The Court also found no material to treat the matter as one involving deceptive conduct under Section 11, because the goods' description did not justify that conclusion. Although an appeal was available, the Court exercised writ jurisdiction and set aside the confiscation order as unsustainable in law, directing release of the goods for transhipment.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confiscation order concerning goods meant for transhipment to Kabul was sustainable in the absence of a notification under Section 11 of the Customs Act and whether the writ petition could be entertained despite availability of an appellate remedy.

Analysis: The goods were covered by Section 54 of the Customs Act governing transhipment without payment of duty, but that provision is made subject to Section 11 only where the Central Government has issued a notification prohibiting import or export of the specified goods. No such notification was shown. The Court also found no basis to treat the case as one involving deceptive practices under Section 11, since the description given was not shown to warrant that conclusion. Although the impugned order was appealable, the Court treated the confiscation order as unsustainable in law and invoked writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The confiscation order was set aside and the goods were directed to be released for transhipment.

---