https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47948 The court directed the release of goods based on the expired period for confiscation proceedings, despite acknowledging liability for confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner's claim for damages for illegal detention of goods was rejected due to delay in filing the writ petition and contumacious conduct. The court ordered the release of goods within two months, allowing respondents to challenge based on custody grounds, emphasizing the absence of ongoing confiscation proceedings and denying damages due to delay in approaching the court. en-us Fri, 13 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 31 Jul 2010 17:17:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47948 The court directed the release of goods based on the expired period for confiscation proceedings, despite acknowledging liability for confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner's claim for damages for illegal detention of goods was rejected due to delay in filing the writ petition and contumacious conduct. The court ordered the release of goods within two months, allowing respondents to challenge based on custody grounds, emphasizing the absence of ongoing confiscation proceedings and denying damages due to delay in approaching the court. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 13 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47948