Writ jurisdiction cannot be used to quantify damages for imported goods sold by customs authorities.

Writ jurisdiction is not the proper forum to assess market value or quantify damages for imported goods retained and later sold by customs authorities. Where physical return is no longer possible, the court may decline to fix a monetary amount and leave valuation and loss to be determined by an appropriate forum. The Calcutta High Court found no illegality or irregularity in the trial court's refusal to determine damages in writ proceedings, and the challenge to that approach failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ court could determine and award the value or damages for imported goods that had been retained and sold by the customs authorities, and whether the order under appeal suffered from any illegality or irregularity.

Analysis: The Court noted that the balance quantity of the imported goods had already been sold by the authorities and, therefore, physical return of the goods was no longer possible. It accepted that the writ court was not the appropriate forum to assess the market value of the goods or quantify the loss allegedly suffered by the petitioners. The Court further found no illegality or irregularity in the trial court's approach in declining to fix a monetary amount in writ jurisdiction, particularly when the question of damages and valuation required adjudication by an appropriate forum.

Conclusion: The challenge to the order failed and the appeal was dismissed.

---