Court Orders Release of Goods Despite Confiscation Liability Under Customs Act

The court directed the release of goods based on the expired period for confiscation proceedings, despite acknowledging liability for confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner's claim for damages for illegal detention of goods was rejected due to delay in filing the writ petition and contumacious conduct. The court ordered the release of goods within two months, allowing respondents to challenge based on custody grounds, emphasizing the absence of ongoing confiscation proceedings and denying damages due to delay in approaching the court.

---

---

Issues:
1. Direction to Custom authorities to release material and allow demurrage cost.
2. Confiscation of goods under the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Entitlement to damages for illegal detention of goods.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The writ petition was filed seeking a direction for the release of goods lying at the Port and to allow the cost of demurrage. The petitioner had purchased hand-tools for export, which were seized by the authorities on the grounds of potential confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962. Despite the absence of a show cause notice and failure to confiscate the goods within the specified period, a show cause notice was eventually issued. The investigation revealed discrepancies in the declared FOB values of the exported goods, indicating fraudulent practices to avail export benefits. The authorities concluded that the goods were attempted to be fraudulently exported and were liable for confiscation under Section 113(i) of the Customs Act, 1962, imposing a penalty of Rs. 12,00,000 on the petitioner.

2. The Tribunal's order directed the release of the goods due to the expired period for confiscation proceedings, despite acknowledging their liability for confiscation. The petitioner appealed against the penalty order, with the Tribunal granting a stay on the penalty amount pending appeal. The petitioner claimed damages for the illegal detention of goods, citing a Supreme Court judgment. However, the court rejected the claim, noting the delay in filing the writ petition and the petitioner's contumacious conduct. As no pending confiscation proceedings existed and with the Tribunal's release order, the court directed the release of goods within two months, allowing the respondents to challenge the release based on custody grounds.

3. The court's decision emphasized the release of goods based on the Tribunal's order and the absence of ongoing confiscation proceedings. The petitioner's request for damages was denied due to the delay in approaching the court and the lack of justification for the delay. The court's directive for release within two months and the respondents' option to contest the release based on custody considerations concluded the judgment, disposing of the writ petition accordingly.

---