Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRATHIBA M.SINGH, SHAIL JAIN
Nageswara Trade – Appellant
Versus
Joint Commissioner Of Customs – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to the seizure of goods (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. petitioner's request details and objections (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. limitations imposed by customs on release (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. judicial review on customs circular and release criteria (Para 14 , 16 , 18) |
| 5. final order regarding petitions (Para 20 , 21) |
JUDGMENT :
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
CM APPL. 34812/2025 in W.P.(C) 5543/2025
2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 8849/2025 W.P.(C) 5543/2025
3. The present petitions have been filed by the Petitioner – M/s. Nageswara Trade under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking issuance of an appropriate writ directing the Respondents to set aside the seizure memo dated 2nd January, 2025 vide which the goods of the Petitioner imported against bill of entry No. 5518018 dated 10th September, 2024 has been seized.
4. In effect, the challenge in the present petitions is to the seizure of the Petitioner’s multi-functional device/ multi-functional printer and photocopier machine without assigning reasons for the same. In fact, Mr. Priyadarshi Manish, ld. Counsel for the Petit
Provisional release of seized goods must comply with statutory provisions, overriding any circular prohibiting such release, which is deemed void if it conflicts with the law.
The necessity for swift adjudication and the provision for provisional release of goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
