Writ interference in customs seizure disputes is unwarranted where contested facts must first be decided in statutory adjudication.

Writ interference was considered inappropriate where seizure-related objections under the Customs Act rested on disputed facts about the genuineness of an extension document, the issuing officer's authority, and procedural compliance. Those matters were treated as requiring fact-finding in the pending adjudication process rather than resolution at the interlocutory writ stage. The adjudicating authority was identified as the proper forum to examine allegations of forgery and the merits of the show-cause notice. Immediate release of the seized goods and pre-adjudication forensic or mobile tower verification were declined, while the status quo was protected and adjudication was directed to be completed expeditiously.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court should interfere in writ jurisdiction with the seizure and the alleged extension of the period under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the basis of disputed questions of fact relating to authenticity, authority, and compliance. (ii) Whether immediate release of the seized goods or directions for forensic and mobile tower verification were warranted before completion of statutory adjudication.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court should interfere in writ jurisdiction with the seizure and the alleged extension of the period under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the basis of disputed questions of fact relating to authenticity, authority, and compliance.

Analysis: The dispute turned on factual questions concerning the genuineness of the extension document, the authority of the issuing officer, the timing of the show-cause notice, and the manner in which the seizure proceedings were conducted. Such questions could not be conclusively resolved without a full fact-finding enquiry. The matter was therefore treated as one that should be examined in the pending adjudication proceedings rather than in writ jurisdiction at an interlocutory stage.

Conclusion: No interference was warranted in writ jurisdiction on these disputed facts, and the challenge to the seizure and extension was not finally accepted.

Issue (ii): Whether immediate release of the seized goods or directions for forensic and mobile tower verification were warranted before completion of statutory adjudication.

Analysis: The Adjudicating Authority was regarded as the proper forum for deciding the merits of the show-cause notice and for considering evidence relating to alleged forgery and procedural compliance. In the absence of a sufficient basis to displace the ongoing statutory process, the Court declined to order immediate release of the seized assets or direct independent forensic inquiry at this stage. Instead, it protected the status quo and required expeditious completion of adjudication.

Conclusion: Immediate release and pre-adjudication forensic directions were declined, but the adjudication was directed to be completed expeditiously.

Final Conclusion: The challenge was not finally allowed on merits, but the appellant obtained limited procedural protection through an expedited adjudication direction and continuation of status quo over the seized assets.

Ratio Decidendi: Where seizure-related disputes depend on contested factual questions and the statutory adjudicatory process is still pending, writ interference at the interlocutory stage is not justified; such matters should ordinarily be left to the designated adjudicating authority.

---