TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Seized imported goods provisional release pending adjudication; authority directed to decide application and allow petitioner participation</h1> Dominant issue: Whether seized imported goods should be provisionally released pending adjudication. Reasoning: HC relied on precedents where conditional ... Seeking release of seized goods - request to forthwith release the imported consignment of the Multi-Functional Devices (86 units) under Bill of Entry No.6633864 - HELD THAT:- Similar writ petitions of identical nature have already been considered by this Bench wherein by way of a conditional interim order this Bench had permitted the release of seized goods subject to the petitioner/importer fulfilling certain conditions. However, as regards the proceedings before the adjudicating authority is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court [2025 (1) TMI 800 - SC ORDER] permitted the adjudicating authority to proceed and decide the same strictly in accordance with law. The petitioner is also held entitled for participation in the adjudicating proceedings. Pursuant to the disposal of the SLP, this Court has disposed of all such writ petitions whereby the goods were released and the proceedings were pending before the adjudicating authority. Similar nature of facts are also there in the instant case also where the stage at this juncture is only the seizure memo and prayer is also only for an interim release of the seized goods. Instant writ petition also therefore can be disposed of at the admission stage itself. Reserving the right of the adjudicating authority to take appropriate decision in the proceedings after permitting the petitioner to represent before the adjudicating authority. Thus, it is ordered that let the respondent authorities pass an order on the application filed by the petitioners for provisional release of the goods. Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to provisional release of the seized imported Multi-Functional Devices pending adjudication, and on what conditions such release should be allowed.Analysis: The petition seeks interim relief limited to provisional release of the seized consignment pending adjudication. Prior decisions of the bench in materially identical petitions permitted conditional release on payment/deposit of enhanced duty quantified by Customs within a specified time, subject to provision of security and without affecting the adjudication proceedings. The same framework of conditions—quantification of enhanced duty within one week, payment and release within four weeks of payment, provision of a bank guarantee of 10 percent of the total price, maintenance of transaction records if goods are sold, and objective consideration of any application for waiver of demurrage—addresses both the revenue interest and the petitioner’s interest in accessing goods pending final adjudication. The adjudicating authority is to proceed independently on merits and is not to be influenced by the conditional release; the petitioner remains entitled to participate in adjudication.Conclusion: Provisional release granted in favour of the petitioner on the stated conditions (payment/deposit of quantified enhanced duty, quantification by Customs within one week, release within four weeks of payment, bank guarantee of 10 percent, record-keeping of subsequent sales, and objective consideration of any demurrage waiver application). Ratio Decidendi: Where seizure precedes adjudication and identical interim relief has been permitted, a court may order provisional release of seized goods subject to quantified payment of enhanced duty, appropriate security by bank guarantee, and conditions preserving the adjudicating authority's independent determination on merits.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
