https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778864 In customs recovery proceedings, attachment of a bank account and factory premises was treated as sustainable where the underlying liability had already attained finality and the detained goods had remained in custody for a long period. The court accepted substantial compliance with the recovery framework under Section 142 of the Customs Act, 1962, and held that the officials were not acting wholly without jurisdiction by invoking attachment rather than first selling the detained goods. At the same time, writ relief was moulded on equitable terms: the court balanced the amounts already recovered and the practical difficulty of selling obsolete goods, and made quashing of the attachment conditional on timely payment of the balance fixed by the court. en-us Sat, 20 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Sep 2025 08:08:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778864 In customs recovery proceedings, attachment of a bank account and factory premises was treated as sustainable where the underlying liability had already attained finality and the detained goods had remained in custody for a long period. The court accepted substantial compliance with the recovery framework under Section 142 of the Customs Act, 1962, and held that the officials were not acting wholly without jurisdiction by invoking attachment rather than first selling the detained goods. At the same time, writ relief was moulded on equitable terms: the court balanced the amounts already recovered and the practical difficulty of selling obsolete goods, and made quashing of the attachment conditional on timely payment of the balance fixed by the court. Case-Laws Customs Sat, 20 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778864