https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786405 Writ interference was considered inappropriate where seizure-related objections under the Customs Act rested on disputed facts about the genuineness of an extension document, the issuing officer's authority, and procedural compliance. Those matters were treated as requiring fact-finding in the pending adjudication process rather than resolution at the interlocutory writ stage. The adjudicating authority was identified as the proper forum to examine allegations of forgery and the merits of the show-cause notice. Immediate release of the seized goods and pre-adjudication forensic or mobile tower verification were declined, while the status quo was protected and adjudication was directed to be completed expeditiously. en-us Tue, 10 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 Feb 2026 09:03:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786405 Writ interference was considered inappropriate where seizure-related objections under the Customs Act rested on disputed facts about the genuineness of an extension document, the issuing officer's authority, and procedural compliance. Those matters were treated as requiring fact-finding in the pending adjudication process rather than resolution at the interlocutory writ stage. The adjudicating authority was identified as the proper forum to examine allegations of forgery and the merits of the show-cause notice. Immediate release of the seized goods and pre-adjudication forensic or mobile tower verification were declined, while the status quo was protected and adjudication was directed to be completed expeditiously. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 10 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786405