JUDGMENT : N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J. 1. Heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. M.L. Gope, learned Counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, Central Excise and Customs, appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner, by way of instituting the present writ petition, has presented a challenge to an order of seizure dated 31-08-2017, issued by the Inspector of Customs, L.G.B.I., Airport, Guwahati. The petitioner has also assailed a communication dated 01-09-2017, by which the reasons to believe that the goods seized vide the order dated 31-08-2017 were illegally imported into India through a route other than those specified under Section 7(1) (c) of the Customs Act, 1962, and the violation of the other provisions of the Customs Act, was communicated. It was further communicated that the goods so seized were now mandated to be confiscated under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. The facts in brief requisite for adjudication of the issues arising in the present writ petition is noticed as under: The petitioner is a jewellery firm operating in Guwahati. A person being the carrier of the petitioner company was proceeding to Calcutta on 26-08-2017, carrying gold and diamond jewelleries of customers of the petitioner Company, meant for repair/cutting/polishing, etc. along with challans and necessary documents. The CISF personnel attached to LGBI Airport, Guwahati, on checking all jewelleries being carried by the person, detained him on the basis of suspicion and the matter came to be informed to the Customs Officers. It is projected in the writ petition that the carrier had produced all valid documents pertaining to the jewelleries in his possession, barring one kada (armlet), which was worn by the carrier, the hard copy of the challan which was mistakenly left by the carrier in the car. It is projected that the challan pertaining to the said kada (armlet), was subsequently produced through the “whatsapp”. The Custom Officers detained all the jewelleries and ornaments and the Director of the petitioner Company was directed to produce all challans in respect of jewelleries. The Director of the company was, thereafter, required to appear before the Custom Officer, however for the reasons stated in the communication issued in this connection by the Director of the Company, the appearance of the Director before the Custom Officer had not occasioned. The Director of the company was, thereafter, required to appear before the Custom Officer, however for the reasons stated in the communication issued in this connection by the Director of the Company, the appearance of the Director before the Custom Officer had not occasioned. The Custom Officer, thereafter vide a communication dated 31.08.2017, summoned the Director of the Company to appear before the designated Officer on 01.09.2017 by invoking the provisions of Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. Before the said Director could appear before the Custom Officers, the Inspector of Customs, LGBI, Airport, Guwahati, proceeded vide seizure memo dated 31.08.2017, to seize the jewellery items which were detained on 26.08.2017, from the carrier of the company. Thereafter, vide a communication dated 01.09.2017, the Inspector of Customs, LGBI, Airport, Guwahati, set out the reasons to believe for seizure of the jewellery items on 31.08.2017. The petitioner being aggrieved by the issuance of the seizure order dated 31.08.2017, as well as the communication dated 01.09.2017, had instituted the present proceedings. 4. Before proceeding to notice the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties, it would be required to notice the developments taking place, after filing of the present writ petition. 4.1. This Court vide order dated 22.09.2017, at the motion stage, noticing that the reason to believe for seizure under Section 110 of the Customs Act, was not available on the date the seizure was so made i.e., on 31.08.2017, proceeded to pass an interim direction, directing provisional release of the seized articles to the owner subject to furnishing required security, under the provision of Section 110 A of the Customs Act. The petitioner Company was further directed to fully co-operate and make themselves available with all relevant documents as may be required by the respondents for the purpose of a fair conclusion of the investigation involved. It is seen that the petitioner had by furnishing due security received the said jewellery items. 4.2 The petitioners, herein, vide Interlocutory Application being I.A(C).No.1476/2018, instituted in the present writ petition, had prayed before this Court for a stay of all proceedings in connection with the order of seizure dated 31.08.2017. It is seen that the petitioner had by furnishing due security received the said jewellery items. 4.2 The petitioners, herein, vide Interlocutory Application being I.A(C).No.1476/2018, instituted in the present writ petition, had prayed before this Court for a stay of all proceedings in connection with the order of seizure dated 31.08.2017. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court upon considering the issues arising in the said Interlocutory Application, proceeded vide order dated 27.04.2018 to hold that the proceeding initiated against the petitioners not being interfered with by this Court, the respondent authorities were at liberty to further proceed and bring the proceedings initiated against the petitioner to its logical end. This Court vide the said order dated 27.04.2018 by clarifying the purport of the contentions made by the respondents in a notice dated 23.04.2018, required the petitioners to fully co-operate and provide all relevant documents as required by the Respondents for the purpose of a fair conclusion of the investigation. 4.3 This Court having not restrained the Custom authorities from further proceeding with the matter, the custom authorities after the seizure was so made, issued a show-cause notice dated 16.08.2018 by invoking the provisions of Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962. The said show-cause notice was so issued requiring the petitioner Company to show-cause as to why the gold articles seized on 31.08.2017 shall not be confiscated in exercise of powers under Section 111(b) (d) r/w Section 119 of the Customs Act and as to why penalty should not be imposed under Section 112 and Section 114 AA of the Customs Act, 1962. 4.4. The petitioner Company along with 2 (two) others as petitioners, instituted WP(C).No.1788/2019 before this Court assailing the said show-cause notice dated 16.08.2018. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.03.2019, upon examining the issues arising in the said writ petition arrived at a conclusion that there is no jurisdictional and/or legal defect/ shortcoming in the show-cause notice dated 16.08.2018 and accordingly held that no order was warranted to impede proceedings pursuant to the issuance of the said show-cause notice dated 16.08.2018. With the above conclusions, the said writ petition came to be dismissed at the motion stage itself. It is in the above background that the present writ petition is taken up for consideration. 5. With the above conclusions, the said writ petition came to be dismissed at the motion stage itself. It is in the above background that the present writ petition is taken up for consideration. 5. In view of the said developments taking place in the matter, a issue would arise as to whether the present writ petition would be maintainable after the issuance of the show-cause notice dated 16.08.2018, initiating confiscation proceedings in the matter against the petitioner Company. As agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the said issue is taken up as a preliminary issue for consideration and basing on the decision thereof, the further issues arising in the present writ petition would be considered on merit. 6. Mr. D. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners after reiterating the facts leading to the institution of the present writ petition and also by referring to the order dated 18.03.2019, passed by a co-ordinate Bench in WP(C).No.1788/2019, has submitted that the cause of action leading to the institution of the present writ petition as well as WP(C).No.1788/2019 were totally different. He submits that while the present proceedings is with regard to the seizure made, in WP(C).No.1788/2019, the challenge was to the institution of confiscation proceedings. He accordingly submits that the order dated 18.03.2019 passed in WP(C).No.1788/2019 would have no bearing with regard to the adjudication of the issue arising in the present writ petition. Mr. D. Saikia, by taking this Court through the order dated 18.03.2019, passed in WP(C).No.1788/2019, has submitted that the learned Single Judge while passing the order dated 18.03.2019, had only examined the matter with regard to the challenge presented to the show-cause notice dated 16.08.2018, and having found that the said show-cause notice to not suffer from any legal defect/shortcoming, had proceeded to dismiss the said writ petition. Mr. D. Saikia, submits that the learned Single Judge in the proceedings of WP(C).No.1788/2019, had no occasion to take into account, the challenge presented in the present proceedings to the seizure order dated 31.08.2017. Accordingly, he submits that the dismissal of WP(C).No.1788/2019 vide the order dated 18.03.2019, will in no manner bar this Court from considering the issues arising in the present writ petition on its own merits. Mr. Accordingly, he submits that the dismissal of WP(C).No.1788/2019 vide the order dated 18.03.2019, will in no manner bar this Court from considering the issues arising in the present writ petition on its own merits. Mr. D. Saikia, learned Senior Counsel, by drawing an analogy to the criminal proceedings, submits that the criminal proceedings, commence by registration of an FIR, followed by the filing of charge-sheet upon conclusion of the investigation. Accordingly, he submits that in matters relating to the proceedings instituted under the Customs Act, the initial proceeding is a seizure proceeding and the same is followed by a confiscation proceeding. By placing reliance on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukesh and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [Criminal Appeal No. 004910/2024 order dated 29.11.2024] has submitted that the scope of application for discharge in a criminal proceedings after filing of a charge- sheet is completely different from a scope of a petition for quashing the criminal proceedings. Similarly, he submits that the show-cause notice having been issued to the petitioner instituting a confiscation proceeding against the petitioner Company, would not result in the present proceedings being rendered infructuous, inasmuch as, in the present proceedings, the very initiation of the proceedings against the petitioner is under challenge. Accordingly, he submits that the present writ petition be taken up for consideration on its own merit. 7. Per contra Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, Central Excise and Customs, submits that the seizure proceedings being a precursor to the institution of confiscation proceedings, the said 2 (two) proceedings are interconnected. He submits that this Court while issuing notice had not restrained the respondent from proceeding further in the matter in terms of the provisions of the Customs Act. He submits that the Custom authorities had proceeded to investigate the matter and on conclusion of the investigation a prima facie case for institution of confiscation proceeding having been established, the Custom authorities had proceeded to issue the show-cause notice dated 16.08.2018. He further submits that the said show-cause notice dated 16.08.2018 having been challenged by the petitioners by way of instituting WP(C).No.1788/2019, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.03.2019 had concluded that there was no jurisdictional and/or legal defect/shortcoming in the show-cause notice dated 16.08.2018. He further submits that the said show-cause notice dated 16.08.2018 having been challenged by the petitioners by way of instituting WP(C).No.1788/2019, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.03.2019 had concluded that there was no jurisdictional and/or legal defect/shortcoming in the show-cause notice dated 16.08.2018. He submits that in the writ petition being WP(C).No.1788/2019 instituted by the present petitioners, the petitioners had brought on record the pendency of the present proceedings as well as the issue arising therein. He submits that the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has passed the said order dated 18.03.2019, after appreciating the said aspect of the matter also. Accordingly, he submits that the confiscation proceedings which is a continuation proceedings of the seizure made in the matter, having being held by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court to be not suffering from any jurisdictional and/or legal defect/shortcoming, the said order not having been put to challenge, has attained its finality. Accordingly, he submits that the issue arising in the present writ petition would not mandate a consideration on its merit. He submits that the petitioner, herein, in the event of the aggrieved by the outcome of the proceedings now instituted in pursuance to the issuance of the show-cause notice dated 16.08.2018, can assail the same availing remedies as provided under law. Accordingly, he submits that the present writ petition would mandate to be dismissed. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 9. The facts noticed hereinabove are not disputed. After the seizure was so made on 31.08.2017, the respondent authorities had issued a communication dated 01.09.2017, setting out the reasons leading to the seizure so made on 31.08.2017. The petitioner Company being aggrieved by the said seizure had instituted the present proceedings. This Court while issuing notice in the matter vide order dated 22.09.2017 had passed the following orders: “The petitioner is a Jeweler Firm operating in Guwahati for last. 70 years. They are before the Court, to challenge the detention and seizure of the jewellery, carried by their employee on 26.8.2017, in a domestic flight from Guwahati to Kolkata. The detention was followed by the seizure of the goods on 31.8.2017 (Annexure-IV), under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 but the reason for the seizure was communicated subsequently on 1.9.2017 (Annexure-VI), by the Inspector of Customs of the LGBI Airport. The detention was followed by the seizure of the goods on 31.8.2017 (Annexure-IV), under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 but the reason for the seizure was communicated subsequently on 1.9.2017 (Annexure-VI), by the Inspector of Customs of the LGBI Airport. Assailing the legality of the detention and the seizure, Ms. M.L. Gope, the learned counsel submits that the customs authorities had no bonafide reason to believe that the jewellery was being smuggled, as supporting documents were produced by the carrier when the goods were detained. Moreover, the reasonable belief for seizure under Section 110 of the Customs Act must be available at the time of seizure but it cannot be reflected subsequently, as has been done in the instant case. The respondents are represented by Mr. S.C. Keyal, the learned Asstt. Solicitor General of India and he submits that the petitioner can apply for provisional release of the goods, under Section 110 A of the Customs Act. He further submits that some discrepancies are seen in the supporting documents, for the seized articles. In view of above, let notice returnable in 4 weeks be issued. Mr. S.C. Keyal, the learned Asstt. Solicitor General, accepts notice for all the respondents. Necessary extra copies be furnished to him. In the interim, having regard to the submissions made, subject to application, the provisional release of the seized articles are ordered to the owner, subject to the furnishing of required security, under Section 110A of the Customs Act.” 10. Petitioner, thereafter, had received the seized gold items by furnishing required security as mandated under Section 110 A of the Customs Act. Thereafter, the petitioner Company had instituted an Interlocutory Application being I.A(C).No.1476/2018 praying for stay of all proceedings pursuant to the impugned seizure effected on 31.08.2017 by the respondent authorities. The said Interlocutory Application was instituted basing on a notice dated 23.04.2018 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Guwahati, Customs Division, wherein, it was stipulated that the Director of the Company shall not be arrested, in the event document produced by the Director are satisfactory and justified possession of the seized ornaments. 11. The said Interlocutory Application was instituted basing on a notice dated 23.04.2018 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Guwahati, Customs Division, wherein, it was stipulated that the Director of the Company shall not be arrested, in the event document produced by the Director are satisfactory and justified possession of the seized ornaments. 11. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27-04-2018, proceeded to dispose of the said Interlocutory Application by clarifying that the notice dated 23-04- 2018 shall be read in a manner that as long as the pre-arrest bail order dated 11-09- 2017 is in force, the respondent authority shall honour the same. The co-ordinate Bench further provided that the applicant shall fully co-operate and make themselves available with all documents as required by the respondents for the purpose of a fair conclusion of the investigation. 12. Thereafter, on conclusion of the investigation, the respondent authorities issued a show-cause notice dated 16-08-2024 invoking the provisions of Section 124 of the Customs Act initiating confiscation proceedings against the petitioner Company with regard to the gold ornaments, in question. The petitioner Company being aggrieved, assailed the said show-cause notice dated 16-08-2018, by way of instituting a writ petition being WP(C)No.1788-2019. The said writ petition, as noticed hereinabove, came to be dismissed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18-03-2019 holding that there was no jurisdictional and/or legal defect/shortcomings in the show-cause notice dated 16-08-2018 and no order was warranted to be issued impleading any proceedings in pursuance to the aforesaid show-cause notice dated 16-08-2018. The order dated 18-03-2019 being relevant is extracted herein below: “18.03.2019 Heard Ms. M.L. Gope, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Assistant SGI representing all the respondents. Primary challenge is to the Show-Cause-Notice dated 16.08.2018, issued under section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962. Order dated 26.02.2019 requiring the petitioners to appear on 18.03.2019 as well as the order dated 27.02.2019 indicating that in the absence of any stay order from the Court, the department is not prevented from proceeding with personal hearing, are also assailed in the present petition. Order dated 26.02.2019 requiring the petitioners to appear on 18.03.2019 as well as the order dated 27.02.2019 indicating that in the absence of any stay order from the Court, the department is not prevented from proceeding with personal hearing, are also assailed in the present petition. The Show-Cause-Notice dated 16.08.2018 have required the petitioners to show cause as to why seized gold kadas/bangles, concealed among other ornaments, valued at Rs.44,70,121/- (Rupees forty four lakh seventy thousand one hundred twenty one) should not be confiscated in exercise of powers under section 111(b) & (d) read with section 119 of the Customs Act, 1962 and why penalty should not be imposed under section 112 and 114 AA of the said Customs Act, 1962. It is seen that the said Show-Cause-Notice dated 16.08.2018 is a detailed one requiring the petitioners to explain in the matter. On going through the materials on record, this Court is of the considered view that in the absence of any jurisdictional and legal defect/shortcomings in the Show-Cause-Notice dated 16.08.2018, no order is warranted to impede any proceedings pursuant to the aforesaid Show-Cause-Notice dated 16.08.2018. In the opinion of the Court, the petitioners are required to participate and cooperate with the proceedings so that the same can be brought to its logical conclusion. Needless to say, if the petitioners are aggrieved of the outcome of the proceedings, it would always be open to the petitioners to avail remedies as provided under the law. In so far as the present petition is concerned and the subject matter of challenge, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition in the present form. Shortly put, the writ petition is premature at this stage. In view of the above, no consideration of the writ petition is required and the same stands dismissed at the Motion stage itself. The respondents shall now fix another date for personal hearing and issue notice in this regard to the petitioners.” 13. This Court has perused the records of WP(C)No.1788/2019 and finds therein, that the petitioner had duly disclosed about the fact of pendency of the present proceedings as well as the nature of challenge raised in the present proceedings. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court while passing the order dated 18-03-2019 had accordingly passed the same by also noticing the nature of challenge presented in the present proceedings. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court while passing the order dated 18-03-2019 had accordingly passed the same by also noticing the nature of challenge presented in the present proceedings. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide the order dated 18-03- 2019 having recorded a conclusion to the effect that the show-cause notice dated 16- 08-2018 to suffer from no jurisdictional and/or legal defect/shortcomings, the said order dated 18-03-2019 not having been assailed by the petitioner Company, the same has attained its finality and accordingly, the precursor proceeding of seizure assailed in the present writ petition would not mandate a consideration on its merits. 14. In view of the above discussions, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition would not mandate consideration on its merits. The present writ petition being held by this Court to be not maintainable, a further discussion on the merits of the matter would not be called for. 15. In view of the above, the present writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and accordingly the same stands dismissed. However, there would be no order as to cost.