Writ jurisdiction was declined where an appealable customs adjudication order followed due notice and hearing.

On 4 December 2023, Customs authorities seized 24,710 kg of Assam dried areca nuts and an Ashok Leyland truck under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, alleging violations of Sections 7, 11, 46 and 47 of the Act read with Section 3(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992.

Maa Kamakhya Traders, the consignor, and Sri Sai Traders, the consignee, initially challenged the seizure in CWJC No. 7641 of 2024 along with the transporter, Satyam Trans Logistics. That petition was confined to the transporter and was subsequently withdrawn without liberty.

Maa Kamakhya Traders and Sri Sai Traders thereafter filed CWJC No. 11471 of 2024 challenging the seizure of the goods and truck. During its pendency, Customs issued a show-cause notice dated 1 October 2024 under Section 124 of the Customs Act to the driver-cum-owner, transporter, consignee and consignor.

The petitioner admitted that the show-cause notice was served and that it was aware of the hearing dates, but it neither filed a reply nor appeared in the adjudication proceedings.

By Order-in-Original No. 80-Cus/ADC/FBG/2025-26 dated 26 December 2025, the seized areca nuts, valued at ₹86,48,500, were confiscated with an option of redemption on payment of ₹2,10,00,000. The order also directed adjustment of the bank guarantee and imposed a personal penalty of ₹2,00,000 on the proprietor under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act.

Instead of pursuing the statutory appeal under Section 128, Maa Kamakhya Traders filed CWJC No. 2129 of 2026 challenging the seizure and adjudication order.

Whether the petitioners in CWJC No. 11471 of 2024 could challenge the seizure of the truck when the transporter’s earlier writ petition challenging the seizure had been withdrawn without liberty?

Whether the seizure memo could be independently quashed after the Customs authorities had completed adjudication and passed a confiscation order?

Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging the adjudication order when an efficacious statutory appeal was available under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962?

Whether the petitioner, having failed to reply to the show-cause notice or participate in the adjudication despite notice and opportunity of hearing, was entitled to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court?

The Court applied Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, governing seizure of goods where the proper officer has reason to believe that the goods are liable to confiscation; Sections 7, 11, 46 and 47 of the Act concerning import control and clearance requirements; Section 124, requiring notice and opportunity before confiscation; Section 125, concerning redemption of confiscated goods; Section 112(b), providing for penalty for acts rendering goods liable to confiscation; and Section 128, providing a statutory appeal against an adjudication order.

The Court also applied the principle that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and ordinarily should not be exercised where an equally efficacious statutory appellate remedy exists, particularly where the petitioner failed to participate in the underlying proceedings.

It further accepted the principle that, once final adjudication and confiscation have taken place, a challenge to the seizure cannot ordinarily be examined in isolation from the confiscation order.

The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s disposal of SLP (C) No. 7146 of 2021 arising from Union of India v. M/s Om Sai Trading Company, concerning the legal consequences of quashing a seizure memo and the Department’s power to proceed under the Customs Act.

The Court held that CWJC No. 11471 of 2024 could not be used to revive or indirectly pursue the transporter’s earlier challenge to the seizure of the truck, because the transporter’s writ petition had been withdrawn unconditionally and without liberty.

Further, the subsequent confiscation order rendered the standalone challenge to the seizure memo inappropriate; the validity of the seizure, confiscation and penalties had to be considered together in the statutory appellate process.

As regards CWJC No. 2129 of 2026, the Court noted that the petitioner had received the show-cause notice, knew of the hearing dates, and nevertheless failed to file a reply or appear.

Since the adjudication order was appealable under Section 128 and the petitioner’s objections—including the alleged absence of “reasons to believe” under Section 110 and the alleged reliance on Section 108 statements—could be examined by the appellate authority, the High Court declined to undertake factual scrutiny in writ jurisdiction.

CWJC No. 2129 of 2026 was not entertained, with liberty to Maa Kamakhya Traders to pursue the statutory remedy in accordance with law.

The Court directed that, if limitation arose in the appeal, the period from 4 February 2026 until 24 July 2026 could be considered in accordance with the principles governing prosecution of a remedy before the wrong forum.

The petitioner was also directed to deposit ₹20,000 as costs with the Patna High Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks.