HC: Writ Against Seizure Dismissed After Valid Confiscation Notice Attains Finality:

HC: Writ Against Seizure Dismissed After Valid Confiscation Notice Attains Finality
The petitioner, M/s Manik Chand and Sons Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., challenged the seizure of gold and diamond jewellery by Customs authorities at LGBI Airport, Guwahati. The jewellery was being carried by an employee for repair and polishing purposes along with supporting documents. However, the goods were detained on suspicion and subsequently seized on 31.08.2017, with reasons communicated the next day alleging illegal import and violations under the Customs Act, 1962. During the pendency of the writ, the High Court had initially allowed provisional release of the seized goods upon furnishing security. Meanwhile, Customs authorities proceeded with investigation and issued a show cause notice dated 16.08.2018 initiating confiscation proceedings. The petitioner separately challenged the show cause notice, but the High Court dismissed that writ in 2019, holding that the notice suffered from no legal or jurisdictional defect. That order attained finality.

Issue Raised: Whether a writ challenging seizure proceedings remains maintainable after issuance and judicial validation of a subsequent show cause notice initiating confiscation proceedings.

HC Held: The Gauhati High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the challenge to seizure had become non-maintainable. The Court observed that seizure proceedings are only a precursor to confiscation proceedings, and once a show cause notice initiating confiscation was upheld by a coordinate bench and attained finality, the earlier challenge to seizure cannot be independently examined.

The Court noted that the petitioner had already disclosed the pendency of the present writ in the earlier proceedings, and yet the coordinate bench upheld the show cause notice. Since that order was not challenged further, it became binding. Consequently, the Court held that no purpose would be served in examining the legality of the initial seizure separately. The petitioner was left free to challenge the final outcome of confiscation proceedings in accordance with law.

To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below