Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. directed the customs authorities to complete pending adjudication proceedings relating to seized buffalo meat consignments within two months and to dispose of the perishable goods within one month from receipt of the judgment. The Court further ordered that the containers used for transportation of the seized goods be released to the concerned carrier within ten days of such disposal. These directions were issued while disposing of three writ petitions challenging proposed disposal notices and seeking expedited adjudication.

The dispute in the present matters arose from the seizure of buffalo meat consignments intended for export. Upon examination, the customs authorities found that the consignments included items allegedly prohibited for export due to misdeclaration. Seizure memos were issued by the fourth respondent—the Superintendent/Senior Intelligence Officer, Office of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Ernakulam—as per Ext.P3 in W.P.(C) No. 19032 of 2025 and Ext.P2 in W.P.(C) No. 19159 of 2025. Following the seizure, confiscation proceedings were initiated, which remain pending before the competent adjudicating authorities.

Also Read: "No Individual Should Be Forcibly Subjected to Narco-Analysis": Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court's Directive, Affirms Voluntariness and Safeguards as Prerequisites

While the adjudication process was ongoing, the authorities issued notices—Ext.P7 in W.P.(C) No. 19032 of 2025 and Ext.P6 in W.P.(C) No. 19159 of 2025—proposing to dispose of the seized goods. The respective petitioners, being the consignors, approached the High Court challenging these notices and seeking directions for expedited completion of the adjudication proceedings.

In W.P.(C) No. 7930 of 2025, the petitioner was the carrier of one of the consignments under dispute in W.P.(C) No. 19032 of 2025. The carrier expressed grievance over the prolonged detention of the containers used for transporting the seized meat. It contended that the delay in adjudication resulted in the continued retention of its containers by the customs authorities and sought early disposal of the goods and prompt release of the containers.

The customs department, through its standing counsel, submitted that the adjudication process could be concluded within a stipulated timeframe. It was further acknowledged that the perishable nature of the goods necessitated their expeditious disposal. The consignors, through their counsel, expressed no objection to the disposal of the articles in accordance with the statutory procedures, and also stated that they were not pursuing objections earlier filed against the disposal notices.

The Court took note of these submissions and the consensus regarding the need for a time-bound resolution. It examined the procedural requirements for adjudication and disposal under applicable rules and statutes and proceeded to issue specific directives accordingly.

The Court recorded, “In all these cases the issue that arises, pertains to the seizure of the consignments of buffalo meat, which were proposed to be exported to a foreign country.” It noted, “On examination, it was found that, there was misdeclaration by the consignor, and it contained certain items which were prohibited to be exported.”

Referring to the procedural status, the Court stated, “Confiscation proceedings were initiated and the same are now pending consideration before the authority concerned.” It recorded, “Pending consideration of the adjudication process, Ext.P7 notice in W.P(C) No.19032/2025 and Ext.P6 notice in W.P(C) No.19159/2025 were issued to the petitioners therein, proposing to dispose of the said properties.”

Regarding the carrier’s petition, the Court noted, “The grievance of the petitioner therein is that, on account of the delay in completing the adjudication process, the containers used for the export are being detained by the authorities concerned.” It observed, “The authorities ought to have disposed of the article expeditiously and released the containers to the petitioner therein.”

During the hearing, the Court recorded, “The learned Standing Counsel for the Customs, upon instructions submitted that, the adjudication process already initiated in respect of these cases, can be completed within a time frame.” It added, “As the articles which are subject matter of the proceedings are perishable, the same have to be disposed of expeditiously and it can also be done within a time frame.”

The Court further recorded, “The learned Counsel for the consignor... submits that, the petitioners therein have no objection in disposing of the articles by following the procedure contemplated under the relevant rules as expeditiously as possible.” It noted, “The petitioners therein are not pursuing the objections submitted by them to the notices for disposal issued by the authorities concerned.”

After reviewing the matter in light of these representations, the Court stated, “I am of the view that, these writ petitions can be disposed of in view of the above submissions and the developments.”

Also Read: Meghalaya HC Dismisses Plea Against LOA Cancellation | Says No Enforceable Contract Formed Without IAMA, Writ Not Maintainable

The Court directed that the competent officer of the Customs must complete the adjudication process, ensuring adherence to the statutory procedure, including providing an opportunity of hearing to the affected parties, as expeditiously as possible, and in any event, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

With respect to the disposal of the articles, the Court ordered that the process be carried out in accordance with the prescribed procedure and completed within one month from the date of receipt of the judgment.

Additionally, the Court instructed that upon completion of the disposal of the properties, the containers be released to the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 7930 of 2025 within ten days from the date of such sale.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Alias M. Cherian, K.M. Raphy, Bristo S. Pariyaram, Minnu Darwin, Reshma Rajesh, Joy Thattil Ittoop, Bijish B. Tom, Uthara A.S., Krishna Kumar T.K., Baby Sonia, Megha Joseph, Govind Vijayakumaran Nair, Karun Mahesh, Nevis Cassandra L Caxton Loretta, Roshni Manuel

For the Respondents: Adv. P.G. Jayashankar, Standing Counsel; Shri. P.R. Sreejith, Standing Counsel

 
Case Title: M/s. Varsha Fresh Meat Products Pvt. Ltd. & Others v. The Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) & Others

Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:37379

Case Numbers: WP(C) No. 19032 of 2025, WP(C) No. 19159 of 2025, WP(C) No. 7930 of 2025

Bench: Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A.

[Read/Download order]