Distinguish between seizure and confiscation under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

In the context of the Essential Commodities Act, it could be seen that an essential commodity which has been seized, could be confiscated. Therefore, confiscation is an action posterior to the seizure of the essential commodity. A commodity that has not been seized cannot be confiscated. Seizure itself does not imply confiscation. The seizure should have been made by virtue of an order passed under Section 3 of the Act. Clause (j) of Section 3 empowers the Government to make an order for seizure of any essential commodity if an order made by the Central Government controlling production, supply, distribution etc. of essential commodities has been or is about to be contravened. Therefore, any contravention or intended contravention of an order passed by the Government under the Act may lead to seizure, and under the circumstances mentioned in Section 6A such seized commodity could be confiscated. Confiscation is provided in section 6 A as where any essential commodity is seized in pursuance of an order made under Section 3 and reported to the Collector and if the Collector is satisfied that there has been contravention of the order, he may pass order for confiscation of (a) the essential commodity so seized, (b) any package, covering or receptacle in which such essential commodity is found, and (c) any animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used in carrying such essential commodity. The Collector has no jurisdiction to go into the validity of the seizure; he could only confiscate goods, out of those seized, in respect of which contravention is established. Only if the seizure is valid could the Collector have jurisdiction to go on into the question whether there has been any contravention of the control order in respect of the whole or part of the goods, seized at this is entirely different from saying that the Collector could go on with the enquiry, postulated in Sections 6A and 6B, when the seizure itself, on which alone his jurisdiction to make an enquiry depends, is found to be illegal. [Hindustan Aluminium v. Controller of Aluminium, AIR (1976) DeWii225]