Ankit Choudhary v. Commissioner of Customs
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Customs Act, 1962 s. 111
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. In such view of the matter, WPA 27897 of 2025 is disposed of as having become infructuous. No costs. (Om Narayan Rai, J.)
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTRA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE WPA 27897 of 2025 Ankit Choudhary Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) and others. --------------- Mr. Mainak Bose, Mr. Shakeel Md. Akhter, Mr. Prabhleen Bharara. … for the petitioner. Mr. Uday Shankar Bhattacharya, Mr. Abhradip Maity, MS. Shatabdi Sen. … for the Customs Authority.
Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner hands up to the Court a letter dated December 13, 2025 issued by the Superintendent of Customs (D.P.U.), Dinhata Customs Division, Cooch Behar and submits that by the said letter, the petitioner has been informed through his authorized representative that <the goods cannot be confiscated under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 (being of Indian origin), the same are being considered for release to the rightful owner with the approval of the competent authority=. The said letter handed up to the Court is taken on record.
It is submitted by the petitioner that this writ petition was filed seeking issuance of mandamus commanding the respondents to release the seized consignment immediately and for setting aside the 2 impugned seizure but since the goods have already been directed to be released by the respondent- Customs Authority the cause of action for the writ petition is no longer alive and the same has become infructuous.
In such view of the matter, WPA 27897 of 2025 is disposed of as having become infructuous. No costs. (Om Narayan Rai, J.)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.