A seizure under Sec. 110 of the Customs Act requires justification that goods are liable for confiscation; local goods cannot be included in such actions.

1. The petitioner is a trader of Face Veneer, plywood and machinery and spare parts relating to the same. The petitioner submits that for the purpose of local sale, they import machinery and spare parts from China with the assistance of a local agent, while face veneer is imported directly by the petitioner. The 3rd respondent conducted an enquiry in the premises of the petitioner and thereafter issued Ext.P7 restraint order invoking S.110 of the Customs Act,1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The goods lying in the warehouse of the petitioner which included face veneer, conveyor belt, plywood, imported machinery, and spare parts were seized. According to the petitioner, the seized goods included conveyor belt and plywood which were procured locally. It is contended that S.110 of the Act can be invoked only in case of imported goods which are liable for confiscation as provided under S.111 of the Act and hence a blanket order seizing all the goods cannot be sustained in law. The petitioner also submits that the total value of the undervalued goods seized as per Ext.P7 amounts to Rs.88,34,124/-, out of which an amount of Rs.78 lakhs has already been discharged by the petitioner by way of Exts.P9 and P10 demand drafts. It is hence submitted that the condition for execution of a bond for the full value of the goods and bank guarantee for Rs.50 lakhs, for provisional release of the seized goods, is unjustified.

2. A counter - affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It is submitted that Rs.78 lakhs is a payment made voluntarily and not a payment for the purpose of the release of the seized goods. It is also stated that there is a presumption that there are more cases of undervaluation. It is submitted that the Adjudicating Authority is not made a party to the writ petition. It is also submitted that the petitioner has a remedy of appeal under S.128 of the Act and hence cannot maintain the writ petition. The petitioner justifies the filing of the writ petition stating that even though an appeal is provided for, the same is not an efficacious remedy, since the hearing and disposal of the appeal would take a long time and all the while, goods that are not liable to be seized, will remain with the Department.

3. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal & Anr. [ AIR 1987 SC 1321 ], wherein it was held that the Court would not sit in appeal on the question whether the articles were seized on a reasonable belief that the goods were smuggled goods. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pukhraj v. D.R.Kohli, Collector of Central Excise & Anr. [ AIR 1962 SC 1559 ] is also to the same effect. The decision of the Madras High Court in ALM Enterprises v. The Commissioner of Customs (WPC No.30789 of 2015) and the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Rajesh Garg v. Assistant Commissioner of Customs (WP No.16376 of 2020) and the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Giriraj Spintex Private Limited v. Director General of Revenue Intelligence & Ors. (WP No.4955 of 2012) are relied on to submit that when the petitioner has an alternate remedy of an appeal, they cannot be permitted to approach this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution. S.110, S.110A, S.111 and S.128 of the Customs Act are extracted below.
"S.110. Seizure of goods, documents and things. -
(1)If the proper officer has reason to believe that any goods are liable to confiscation under this Act, he may sei