Statutory provisional release remedy bars writ review of customs seizure where detained perishable goods need prompt decision.

A writ challenge to a seizure order was not entertained because the petitioner had already invoked the statutory remedy for provisional release under Section 110A of the Customs Act. The goods had remained detained for a substantial period, were described as perishable and carrying an expiry date, and the provisional release application had been pending for more than ten days. In these circumstances, the Court treated the statutory remedy as efficacious and declined to examine the seizure challenge on merits at that stage. The authority was directed to decide the pending provisional release application by a reasoned order within a fixed time.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the seizure order and seeking provisional release of the detained goods should be entertained when the petitioner had already invoked the statutory remedy under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The goods had been detained for a substantial period before the seizure order was passed, and the application for provisional release had remained pending for more than ten days. The goods were described as perishable and bearing an expiry date. In these circumstances, the statutory remedy for provisional release was treated as efficacious and already availed. The Court therefore declined to enter upon the merits of the seizure challenge at this stage and directed the authority to decide the pending application by a reasoned order within a fixed time.

Outcome: The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to decide the provisional release application expeditiously.

---