Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2023 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 21 - KERALA HIGH COURTValidity of restraint order - imposition of conditions for provisional release of the seized goods - reasons to believe - only grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has already paid a substantial amount towards the differential duty and hence it is unfair to impose such conditions - HELD THAT:- A reading of Section 111 shows that it applies to goods brought from outside India. Since seizure under Section 110 relates to articles liable for confiscation, necessarily articles procured locally fall out of the ambit to Sections 110 and 111. It is evident that there is a factual dispute regarding the payment of Rs. 78 lakhs and it is this demand which is stated as a reason for reconsidering the direction to furnish bank guarantee. In the light of the specific appellate remedy available to the petitioner and the factual dispute which would go to the root of the order which is impugned, it is not proper for this Court to consider the said issue on merits in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition is hence disposed of directing the competent authority to examine whether any of the articles seized are articles that were procured locally. If the competent authority finds that any of the seized articles are articles procured locally, steps shall be taken to release such articles.
|