Alternate statutory remedy bars writ review of customs release conditions for seized trucks, with liberty to appeal.

A writ challenge to customs conditions for provisional release of seized trucks was declined because an efficacious statutory appeal was available under the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner had objected to the requirement of a security deposit and bond imposed by customs intelligence authorities as a condition for release of the seized vehicles, but the Court noted that the statute provided an appellate remedy against orders concerning provisional release of seized goods. As the alternate remedy was available, the Court did not examine the merits in writ jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed with liberty to pursue the statutory appeal, and the time spent in writ proceedings was directed to be excluded for limitation if the appeal was filed within the prescribed period.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the conditions imposed for release of the seized trucks was liable to be entertained when an efficacious statutory appellate remedy was available under the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The petitioner questioned the authority of the customs intelligence authorities to insist on security deposit and a bond as a pre-condition for release of the seized vehicles. The Court noted that proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962 had commenced and that the statute provided an appellate remedy against orders passed in relation to provisional release of seized goods. In view of the availability of that alternate remedy, the Court found it unnecessary to enter into the merits of the dispute in the writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained and was dismissed, with liberty to pursue the statutory appeal and with exclusion of the time spent in the writ proceedings for limitation purposes if the appeal was filed within the stipulated period.

---