The sanctity of legal proceedings and the protection of the interests of the respondents are paramount in matters of seizure and export of goods.

( 1 ). We have heard learned counsel on both the sides. Delay condoned. Even at the stage when the goods were seized, the respondents hastened to move a petition under Article 226 before the High court and obtained aninterdiction of further proceedings. The learned Single Judge also directed the release of the seized goods. In the appeal preferred by the Revenue, the revenue was worse off than it was before the appeal as the division bench went further and directed that the respondents may even export the goods during the pendency of the statutory adjudication.

( 2 ). We fail to appreciate how this intervention could have been made by the High court in a matter of this kind at that particular stage. Shri chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel, however, submitted that the respondents would in any event be entitled to have the goods released on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation even if there was such confiscation. He said that in that view of the matter even the prospect of an order of confiscation of the goods in the statutory adjudication need not detain the export as the respondents could always pre-empt confiscation by payment of fine in lieu thereof.

( 3 ). This submission looks attractive on the face of it but on closer scrutiny it is not as sound as it is attractive. The proceedings of seizure and confiscation are proceedings in rem. Until the culmination of the adjudication it is difficult to envisage any right on the part of the respondents from whom they are seized to export them on the basis of a future title they expect to acquire by payment of fine. The learned counsel, however, says that it would earn foreign exchange for the country. But sanctity of legal proceedings cannot be whittled down on grounds of such expediency.

( 4 ). In the circumstances, we set aside both the orders of the learned single Judge as well as of the division bench. The writ petition before the high court deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. The interest of the respondents will be adequately protected, if we direct the statutory adjudication to be completed within 45 days from 1/2/1994. The first date of hearing before the statutory authority shall be 1/2/1994, and the respondents shall appear before the authority without further notice. The authority shall call the matter on that date for further proceedings in the matter. The claim of the respondents to entitlement to redeem the goods by payment of fine in lieu of confiscation may be considered by the authority at the appropriate stage and in accordance with law. If the goods are so returned to the respondents, then the respondents may become entitled to export them. Against the adjudication the respondents shall, of course, be entitled to pursue their statutory appeals etc.

( 5 ). The special leave petition is disposed of.