Form MOV-10 confiscation proceedings pending; release order and finding of illegal detention were set aside

Proceedings under Form MOV-10 were still pending, so the HC held that the legality of detention without a separate detention order should not be finally decided at that stage because the issue would become academic until the confiscation process was completed. The Single Judge's direction to release the goods on a simple bond, and the finding that detention was illegal, were set aside. The adjudicating authority was directed to hear the respondent, consider the request for release, and complete the confiscation proceedings expeditiously within the stipulated time.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order of the learned Single Judge directing release of the detained goods and recording that detention without a formal detention order was illegal could be sustained at the stage when proceedings under Form MOV-10 were still pending.

Analysis: The goods were intercepted and a proposal for confiscation was issued under Form MOV-10. The respondent had offered to pay the quantified fine and penalty only to secure release of the goods, while reserving its right to challenge the proceedings. The notice under Form MOV-10 was only a proposal and the statutory adjudicating authority had not yet completed the confiscation proceedings. In these circumstances, the question whether detention without a separate detention order was illegal was not to be finally answered at that stage, since it would become academic and could be considered after the statutory process was concluded. The proper course was to allow the adjudicating authority to decide the request for release and to complete the proceedings expeditiously.

Conclusion: The direction for release on a simple bond and the finding that the detention was illegal were set aside. The adjudicating authority was directed to complete the proceedings under Form MOV-10 after hearing the respondent and pass an order within the stipulated time.

---