https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45815 Writ jurisdiction was held available where the customs action was challenged at its jurisdictional root, so the existence of an alternative statutory remedy did not bar the petition. The governing test under section 110(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 is that seizure requires a prima facie reasonable belief, formed at the time of seizure, that the goods are liable to confiscation. Mere suspicion, later justification, an unlinked secret input, or delayed seizure formalities cannot satisfy that statutory precondition. On the facts noted, the seizure was therefore illegal, and the customs action and proceedings based on it were invalid. en-us Wed, 05 Dec 1973 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Jul 2010 10:20:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45815 Writ jurisdiction was held available where the customs action was challenged at its jurisdictional root, so the existence of an alternative statutory remedy did not bar the petition. The governing test under section 110(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 is that seizure requires a prima facie reasonable belief, formed at the time of seizure, that the goods are liable to confiscation. Mere suspicion, later justification, an unlinked secret input, or delayed seizure formalities cannot satisfy that statutory precondition. On the facts noted, the seizure was therefore illegal, and the customs action and proceedings based on it were invalid. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 05 Dec 1973 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45815