Undervaluation alone cannot justify detention of goods in transit; separate proceedings are required before confiscation.

Alleged undervaluation of goods in transit, by itself, is not a valid basis for mechanical detention or confiscation of a truck and consignment. The Court found that the only surviving objection was the difference between the MRP printed on the boxes and the invoice price, which could not justify seizure of the vehicle and goods on that ground alone. The proper course, if undervaluation is suspected, is to pursue separate proceedings in accordance with law. The detention and seizure were therefore quashed and release of the truck and goods was directed.

---

---

Issues: Whether detention of a truck and seizure of goods in transit could be sustained solely on the ground of alleged undervaluation of the goods.

Analysis: The detention notice referred to multiple objections, but the pleadings showed that the sole surviving basis pressed by the respondents was that the MRP printed on the boxes was higher than the invoice price. The Court held that undervaluation by itself cannot justify mechanical detention or confiscation of a consignment in transit. If the department considers the goods to be undervalued, it must take recourse to appropriate separate proceedings in accordance with law rather than detain the vehicle and goods on that ground alone.

Conclusion: The detention of the truck and seizure of the goods were illegal and were quashed. The goods and truck were directed to be released, while the respondents were left free to initiate separate proceedings regarding alleged undervaluation, if so required.

Ratio Decidendi: Alleged undervaluation of goods in transit, by itself, is not a valid ground for detention or confiscation of the vehicle and goods; the proper course is to pursue separate proceedings under the law.

---