Customs offences involving prohibited goods were treated as cognizable, defeating interim protection against coercive action.

Interim protection against coercive customs action was refused where the allegations on a prima facie view involved smuggling and seizure of gold treated as prohibited goods under the Customs Act, 1962. The Court read the customs definitions and offence provisions to note that offences involving prohibited goods, and certain serious duty-evasion cases, are cognizable, while other offences are non-cognizable. On the materials before it, Section 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was held inapplicable for interim restraint. The broader constitutional challenge and final factual questions were left for decision in the main proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether interim stay ought to be granted against coercive action under the Customs Act, 1962; whether the alleged acts, on a prima facie view, related to prohibited goods and therefore constituted cognizable offences; and whether Section 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applied to the impugned proceedings.

Analysis: The challenge to the constitutional validity of Sections 104, 105 and 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 was not decided finally at this stage, and the Court examined only whether interim protection was warranted. It compared the relief claimed with the earlier proceedings relied upon and found that the present case arose from allegations of smuggling and seizure of gold, with summons issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Court read Section 2(33) and Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 to hold that gold may fall within prohibited goods where import conditions are not satisfied. It also referred to Section 104 of the Customs Act, 1962 to note that offences relating to prohibited goods and evasion or attempted evasion of duty exceeding fifty lakh rupees are cognizable, while other offences are non-cognizable. On the materials then available, the Court formed a prima facie view that the allegations against the petitioners related to prohibited goods, so Section 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 had no application for the purpose of interim protection.

Conclusion: Interim stay was not justified and the prayer for coercive protection was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to grant interim protection in the pending writ proceedings and left the larger constitutional and factual issues to be decided in the main matters.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the allegations prima facie concern prohibited goods under the Customs Act, 1962, the offence is cognizable and the restrictions applicable to non-cognizable cases under Section 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 do not govern interim restraint against coercive customs action.

---