2026 (2) TMI 553 - HC - Customs

Extension of time and validity of customs seizure - writ court declines interlocutory interference, matter left to adjudication.

Procedural compliance for extension under Section 110(2) and the legality of a customs seizure require fact finding on document authenticity, timelines ... Extension of time u/s 110(2) - seizure u/s 110(1) - requirement of reasons in writing by the Commissioner for extension - jurisdiction of writ court versus adjudicating authority - forensic examination and mobile tower data as matters for fact finding - interim relief and maintenance of status quo on seized goods - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the opinion that the core dispute hinges on Section 110(2)'s procedural compliance for extension and seizure validity issues essentially factual, involving document authenticity, timelines and investigation sufficiency. While the appellant raises serious allegations of tampering and authority excess, these cannot be conclusively resolved in writ jurisdiction without a full fact-finding inquiry. The Single Judge appropriately noted no 'apparent reason to doubt' genuineness post-affidavit review but refrained from final merits, as SCN proceedings remain pending. The Adjudicating Authority under the Customs Act serves as the designated fact-finding body and any interference by this Court at the interlocutory stage prior to completion of adjudication would amount to usurping its statutory role. The appellant has failed to demonstrate irreparable injury sufficient to warrant immediate release of the seized goods, whose claimed Indian origin remains contestable pending investigation. Similarly, claims for forensic examination and mobile tower verification, while meriting scrutiny, properly fall within the domain of the Adjudicating Authority rather than writ proceedings. The writ appeal is disposed of by declining interlocutory interference with the seizure. Issues: (i) Whether the purported extension under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 was procedurally valid and whether related documents require forensic verification; (ii) Whether the seizure under Section 110(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 should be quashed and the seized goods released at the interlocutory writ stage.Issue (i): Whether the extension under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 was procedurally valid and whether document authenticity requires forensic examination.Analysis: The question involves contested factual matters including authorship/authenticity of the extension document, sequence and manner of communication, and related evidentiary materials. These matters were examined on affidavit materials but raise issues of fact and potential forgery which are within the investigative and adjudicatory remit of the statutory authority. The record reflects that the Single Judge reviewed annexures and found no apparent reason to doubt genuineness, while the parties differ on the need and timing for forensic verification.Conclusion: The extension under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the need for forensic verification are matters for the Adjudicating Authority to determine after fact-finding; no writ-stage quashing is warranted on this ground in the absence of conclusive evidence of procedural invalidity.Issue (ii): Whether the seizure under Section 110(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 should be quashed and the seized goods released at the interlocutory writ stage.Analysis: The validity of seizure and entitlement to immediate release requires assessment of competing factual claims (origin of goods, circumstances of seizure, and alleged duress). The appellant has not demonstrated irreparable injury or such overwhelming prejudice as to displace the statutory adjudicatory process. The Adjudicating Authority is empowered to continue investigation and adjudication, and interim relief in writ jurisdiction would intrude on that role absent exceptional circumstances.Conclusion: The seizure under Section 110(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 is not quashed at the interlocutory writ stage; the appeal is dismissed subject to expedited adjudication by the competent authority.Final Conclusion: The Court declines to interfere with the ongoing statutory adjudication and directs the Adjudicating Authority to complete the Show-Cause proceedings within three months, maintaining the status quo on the seized goods pending a reasoned adjudication.Ratio Decidendi: Where disputed questions of document authenticity, investigative facts and procedural compliance arise, the Adjudicating Authority is the appropriate forum for fact-finding and a writ court will not grant interlocutory relief or quash seizures under the Customs Act, 1962 absent a clear demonstration of irreparable harm or procedural nullity.