The judgment establishes the legal framework for the provisional release of seized goods under the Customs Act, 1962, and emphasizes the need for the customs department to conclude inquiries within a reasonable time.

ORDER

J.B.PARDIWALA, J.

1 By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicants have prayed for the following reliefs:

“(A1) the Respondents to forthwith release the consignment imported under Bill of Exchange No. 4964569 by the Petitioner;

(A2) quash and set aside the communication dated Annexure-A issued by the Respondents No. 2 in so far as the same pertains to the Petitioner No.1;

(A3) command the Respondents and/or its concerned officers to pay/refund detention/demmurage/shipping charges paid by the Petitioner No. 1.

In the Alternative

Direct the Respondent No. 1 authority to waive the detention/demurrage/shipping charges payable by the Petitioner No. 1.

(B) During the pendency and final disposal of this petition, (1) stay the implementation, operation and execution of the impugned communication dated 25.10.2021 at Annexure-A hereto issued by Respondent No. 2in so far as the same pertains to the Petitioner No.1 and unconditionally release the consignment imported under Bill of Exchange No. 4964569 by the Petitioner;

In the alternative

(ii) stay the implementation, operation and execution of the impugned communication dated 25.10.2021 at Annexure-A hereto issued by Respondent No.2,in so far as the same pertains to the Petitioner No.1 and provisionally release the consignment imported under Bill of Exchange No. 4964569 by the Petitioner.

(C) Grant ex-parte ad-interim relief in terms of para (B) above be granted;

(D) Award cost of this petition.

(E) Pass such other and further orders as may be deemed just and expedient, in facts of the present case, in favour of the Petitioners.”

2. We need not delve much into the facts of this case as we intend to dispose of this writ application with appropriate directions and observations and further, the orders passed by this Court time to time would make the picture abundantly clear. While issuing notice, this Court passed the following order dated 28th January 2022:

“1 We have heard Mr. Tirth Nayak, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicants.

2. Prima facie, it appears from the materials on record that the writ applicants herein imported Raw Magnesite from Abu Dhabi. The goods came to be seized by the respondent No.2 herein at the Adani Port. The respondent No.2 has some information that the writ applicants have, in fact, not imported the subject goods from Abu Dhabi, but those have been imported from Pakistan.

3. Although the respondent No.2 herein has ordered provisional release of the subject goods, yet those have been released on the condition that the writ applicants shall furnish a bond of full value of the goods with bank guarantee of the differential duty calculated at 200% BCD and IGST at appropriate rate. Mr. Nayak would submit that the condition imposed by the respondent No.2 for the provisional release of the subject goods could be termed as unreasonable and onerous. He would submit that even otherwise, the very seizure of the subject goods is illegal as there is no violation of any of the rules or regulations by the writ applicants so far as the import of the subject goods is concerned. He would submit that the goods in question are neither prohibited nor restricted. However, Mr. Nayak pointed out that there appears to be a policy that if the goods are imported from Pakistan, then there shall be a levy of 200% duty on such goods. He reiterated that the goods have not been imported from Pakistan, but those have been imported from Abu Dhabi. He further pointed out that in the past, five times such type of goods have been imported by the writ applicants without any question at the end of the respondents.

4. Let Notice be issued to the respondents, returnable on 3rd February 2022. Direct service is permitted.

5. In the meantime, Mr. Nayak shall furnish one set of his entire paper book to Mr. Devang Vyas, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India, who would be appearing for the respondents.

6. On the returnable date, notify this matter o