The Magistrate has no jurisdiction to order the confiscation of goods seized under the Customs Act.

( 1 ) PETITIONER is aggrieved by the order dated 17. 5. 1996, passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, holding that the goods that had been seized as well as the Indian and foreign currency that had been ordered to be released by the Commissioner of Customs as well as by the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (in short CEGAT) is case property re-quired during trial.

( 2 ) LEARNED Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, therefore, held that it would be premature, improper and unjust to release the said case property prior to the conclusion of the trial and at least before the conclusion of the evidence. The impugned order was passed on an application moved by the department seeking directions in view of the orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs as well as by the CEGAT, declining stay of the order of the Commissioner of Customs.

( 3 ) IT may also he noticed that the petitioner had also filed a writ petition seeking similar relief. However, this Court disposed of the same, holding no orders were necessary in view of the before passed by the CEGAT.

( 4 ) THE facts giving rise to the present petition may briefly be noticed :

(I) There was a raid on the residential and business premises of the petitioner on 11. 10. 1991. Rs. 15 lacs in Indian currency and goods of foreign origin as Well as foreign currency. Bank drafts and cheques totalling approximately US $ 29,740 were recovered. The petitioner preferred TO Writ Petition No. 3879/91, claiming that the amount of Rs. 15 lacs found in cash was to be deposited with the National Housing Bank under the voluntary deposits (Immunities and Exemption) Act, 1991. Under the scheme 60% of the amount deposited, could be withdrawn by the depositor and the remaining 40% of the amount remained with the National Housing Bank, which was not refundable. This Court disposed of the writ petition and directed the Customs Authorities to deposit Rs. 15 lacs with the National Housing Bank under the scheme. Customs Authorities were further permitted to withdraw 60% of the amount forthwith. The Court held that in case the petitioner succeeded and the seizure was invalid, the petitioner would be entitled to 60% of the amount withdrawn by the Customs Authorities. In case the petitioner failed and the seizure was held to be valid then the National Housing Bank would refund 40% of the amount to the Customs department.

(II) The Customs Authorities thereafter began the adjudication proceedings. The Commissioner of Customs passed a detailed order bearing No. 2/ MMS/95 dated 10. 2. 1995 by which it dropped the proceedings initiated against the petitioner. The five cheques, pay orders that were recovered from the brief case were ordered to be released to the petitioner for onward transmission to their respective owners. As regards the Indian currency amounting to Rs. 15 lacs, the 60%with the Customs Authorities was directed to bereleased to the petitioner, with Income Tax and other concerned authorities being suitably informed. All other goods seized from the residence of the petitioner were also ordered to be released,

(III) The department preferred TO an appeal against the said order. The CEGAT vide its order dated 15. 1. 1996 rejected the prayer of the department for stay of the order insofar as the release of cheques, pay orders, foreign exchange and the Indian currency were concerned. However, as regards the goods seized from the residence of the petitioner, the CEGAT held that the goods were miscellaneous in nature including camera, liquors. The Court while directing early hearing held that the goods seized and ordered to be released, may not be released and kept with the Customs department. There after, this Court on 23. 2. 1996 disposed of C. W. 3161/ 1995, filed by the petitioner seeking release of the seized goods on the basis of the order of the Commissioner dated 22. 10. 1995, holding that in view of the above order i. e. 15. 1. 1996, passed by the