Challenge to seizure in confiscation proceedings remains available where legality of seizure was not finally decided.

In confiscation proceedings, a party may challenge the legality of the underlying seizure unless that issue has already been finally adjudicated. An earlier refusal to interfere at the notice stage did not determine the validity of the seizure, and it did not bar the appellant from explaining the nature and ownership of the ornaments or from contending that the seizure was unlawful. A meaningful opportunity to resist confiscation must extend to contesting the foundational seizure. The appellant was therefore entitled to raise objections in the pending confiscation proceeding, and the authorities were required to grant reasonable time for an effective response.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant could, in the confiscation proceedings, question the correctness of the seizure of the jewellery despite an earlier challenge to the show-cause notice having failed.

Analysis: The earlier order had declined interference at the stage of the notice proposing confiscation, but that did not amount to a determination on the legality of the seizure itself. The confiscation proceeding was a subsequent stage, and the appellant could not be denied an opportunity to explain the nature and ownership of the ornaments or to contend that the seizure was unlawful. A meaningful opportunity to meet the proposed confiscation necessarily included the right to contest the foundational seizure.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to raise objections to the seizure in the confiscation proceeding, and the authorities were required to grant an effective opportunity for that purpose.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was disposed of by preserving the appellant's right to contest the seizure in the pending confiscation proceedings and by directing that reasonable time be granted for a meaningful response.

Ratio Decidendi: A challenge to the legality of seizure can be raised in subsequent confiscation proceedings unless that issue has been finally adjudicated, and an effective opportunity to be heard must extend to contesting the foundational seizure.

---