Customs seizure revaluation power held absent where statute authorises only inventory certification and no fresh valuation direction.

A challenge to revaluation was held maintainable despite an earlier withdrawal, because that withdrawal did not amount to an unconditional abandonment of the grievance when the respondents later revived the dispute. On the merits, Section 110(1B) of the Customs Act, 1962 was held to authorise only certification of the inventory and description of seized goods for evidentiary purposes; it does not confer power to order fresh valuation. As the valuation issue had already been concluded in adjudication and no express statutory power existed, the revaluation direction was treated as an excess of jurisdiction and set aside, while certification proceedings were permitted to continue expeditiously.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the objection to maintainability failed notwithstanding the earlier withdrawal of the petitioner's prior petition after adjudication; (ii) Whether a Magistrate, while acting under Section 110(1B) of the Customs Act, 1962, could direct revaluation of seized goods.

Issue (i): Whether the objection to maintainability failed notwithstanding the earlier withdrawal of the petitioner's prior petition after adjudication.

Analysis: The earlier withdrawal was based on the understanding that the valuation controversy had been overtaken by the adjudication order. When the respondents later revived the controversy by seeking compliance with the earlier revaluation direction, the petitioner was entitled to challenge the fresh direction. The prior withdrawal did not amount to an unconditional abandonment of the grievance against revaluation.

Conclusion: The maintainability objection failed, and the petition was held maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether a Magistrate, while acting under Section 110(1B) of the Customs Act, 1962, could direct revaluation of seized goods.

Analysis: Section 110(1B) empowers certification of the inventory and description of seized goods for evidentiary purposes. It does not confer a power to order a fresh valuation. The valuation discrepancy relied upon by the Magistrate had a reasonable explanation, and the valuation issue had already been concluded in adjudication proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962. In the absence of any specific statutory power, the direction for revaluation amounted to an excess of jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The Magistrate had no authority to direct revaluation, and the impugned direction was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded, the revaluation direction was set aside, and only the certification proceedings under Section 110(1B) of the Customs Act, 1962 were permitted to continue expeditiously.

Ratio Decidendi: A Magistrate exercising powers under Section 110(1B) of the Customs Act, 1962 may certify the inventory of seized goods, but cannot order revaluation unless such power is expressly conferred by statute.

---