Provisional release of seized imported goods cannot be denied without a competent finding supporting customs prohibition and legality.

Provisional release of seized imported goods under section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be denied merely on an asserted prohibition or public health concern under another statute. Customs officers must act within the Customs Act and cannot independently determine food safety issues or rely on an unadjudicated misclassification theory to justify refusal of release. Where no competent authority has first made the requisite finding under the relevant special law, denial of provisional release is legally untenable. The goods were directed to be released provisionally on furnishing bond and complying with the required procedural safeguards.

---

---

Issues: Whether provisional release of seized imported goods could be denied on the ground that the goods were allegedly prohibited or unfit for human consumption under other laws, and whether the customs authority had jurisdiction under section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 to refuse release on that basis absent a competent adjudicatory determination.

Analysis: Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 is a facilitative provision enabling release of seized goods pending adjudication on such bond, security and conditions as may be required. The power under section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 to justify seizure and consequential denial of release depends on a legally sustainable finding of prohibition or other breach, and not on an independent customs determination of public health risk under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. Customs officers are confined to the statutory remit of the Customs Act, 1962 and cannot assume the role of the designated authority under the food safety regime. The impugned refusal also could not be sustained by invoking a prohibition relating to a different tariff classification where no misclassification-based adjudication had been completed. In the absence of a determination by the competent authority under the relevant special law, refusal of provisional release was held to be legally untenable.

Conclusion: The refusal to grant provisional release was set aside and the goods were directed to be provisionally released on furnishing bond and complying with the procedural safeguards required under the Customs Act, 1962.

Ratio Decidendi: Provisional release under section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be denied merely on an asserted concern of prohibition or public health under another statute unless the competent statutory authority has first made the requisite finding that would legally sustain action under section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962.

---