Writ of Mandamus Denied in Customs Case: Court Emphasizes Clear Release Instructions

The appellant sought a Writ of Mandamus for the release of seized goods and issuance of a show cause notice under the Customs Act. The Single Bench dismissed the writ petition due to a provisional release order. The Court directed the department to provide clear instructions for release conditions, including a bank guarantee. The appellant was directed to execute a bond. The Court emphasized the need for a clear order to balance revenue protection and the appellant's rights. The Court allowed the department to issue a show cause notice within two months and a supplementary notice if necessary, with the order specific to this case.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether the goods should be detained any longer.
2. Whether a show cause notice should be issued to the appellant.

Analysis:
1. The appellant sought a Writ of Mandamus for the issuance of a show cause notice under Section 124(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, and the release of the seized consignment. The Single Bench dismissed the writ petition as a detailed order for provisional release had been passed by the Joint Commissioner of Customs. The appellant contended that the conditions for provisional release were onerous despite paying the differential duty. The Court directed the department to provide necessary instructions, including furnishing a bank guarantee and responding on the issuance of a show cause notice. The respondent department accepted the payment of the differential duty but directed the appellant to execute a bond and submit a bank guarantee. The Court found the quantification of the bank guarantee amount unclear and noted that the goods, readymade garments, had been detained since September 2021. It was concluded that a workable order should be passed to protect revenue interests while allowing the appellant to clear the goods.

2. Regarding the issuance of the show cause notice, the Court stated that if the appellant's case could be separated from another individual's case, the department should not unduly delay issuing the notice. The appeal was disposed of by directing the release of the goods upon the appellant furnishing a bond. The Court allowed the department to issue a show cause notice to the appellant if feasible, preferably within two months. The respondent department was permitted to issue a supplementary show cause notice if fresh material emerged after further inquiry. It was emphasized that the order was specific to the case and should not set a precedent.

---