https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469015 A writ challenge to a seizure order was not entertained because the petitioner had already invoked the statutory remedy for provisional release under Section 110A of the Customs Act. The goods had remained detained for a substantial period, were described as perishable and carrying an expiry date, and the provisional release application had been pending for more than ten days. In these circumstances, the Court treated the statutory remedy as efficacious and declined to examine the seizure challenge on merits at that stage. The authority was directed to decide the pending provisional release application by a reasoned order within a fixed time. en-us Mon, 24 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 May 2026 19:02:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469015 A writ challenge to a seizure order was not entertained because the petitioner had already invoked the statutory remedy for provisional release under Section 110A of the Customs Act. The goods had remained detained for a substantial period, were described as perishable and carrying an expiry date, and the provisional release application had been pending for more than ten days. In these circumstances, the Court treated the statutory remedy as efficacious and declined to examine the seizure challenge on merits at that stage. The authority was directed to decide the pending provisional release application by a reasoned order within a fixed time. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 24 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469015