Legal principle

The argument about proportionality of punishment with reference to the nature of the scheduled offence is wholly unfounded and stands rejected.

Court decision

The Court disposed of the batch: transfer petitions were disposed of with liberty to pursue High Court proceedings; transferred cases were restored to the High Courts limited to discharge/bail/quashing relief; writ petitions whose only relief was the validity/interpretation of the 2002 Act were disposed of in terms of the judgment (i.e., the challenge failed); the proportionality-of-punishment argument was rejected; Finance Bill/Money Bill writs were delinked to be heard with Rojer Mathew vs. South Indian Bank Ltd.; matters involving other statutes — including the Customs Act, 1962 — were delinked and ordered to be listed 'group-wise/Act-wise' before appropriate Benches, with interim relief continuing for four weeks. The decided points went in favour of the Union.

Key provisions

• Section 19, Customs Act, 1962 — Determination of duty where goods consist of articles liable to different rates of duty
• Section 102, Customs Act, 1962 — Persons to be searched may require to be taken before gazetted officer of customs or magistrate
• Section 104, Customs Act, 1962 — Power to arrest
• Section 35(1), Customs Act, 1962 — Restrictions on goods being water-borne