Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sidharth Vijay Shah, imported a 2019 RHD Ford Mustang GT Coupe sports car valued at USD 46,730, paying customs duty of Rs. 72,48,875/-. The car was detained and later seized on 20.03.2020 by customs authorities on suspicion that it was actually a 1967 model, around 50-60 years old, and imported in violation of import policy, thus a prohibited good. The petitioner sought provisional release, but the customs did not decide; he appealed to CESTAT, which was non-functional. He then filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking direction for provisional release. The respondents opposed, citing the car's age and modifications. The court, considering the hardship and the fact that duty was paid, directed provisional release on conditions: petitioner to furnish a bond of Rs. 72,48,875/- and a bank guarantee of Rs. 10,00,000/- within two weeks, and to keep the car in good condition, not to sell or transfer it, and to produce it as required. The court also directed expeditious adjudication within three months.
Headnote
A) Customs Law - Provisional Release of Seized Goods - Section 110, 111, 151A Customs Act, 1962 - Seizure of imported car on suspicion of being a 1967 model violating import policy - Court directed provisional release on furnishing a bond of Rs. 72,48,875/- and a bank guarantee of Rs. 10,00,000/- pending adjudication - Held that provisional release can be ordered to prevent hardship, subject to conditions safeguarding revenue and compliance (Paras 5-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to provisional release of the seized car pending adjudication by the customs authorities.
Final Decision
The court directed the respondents to provisionally release the seized car to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of the order, subject to the petitioner furnishing a bond of Rs.72,48,875/- and a bank guarantee of Rs.10,00,000/-. The petitioner must keep the car in good condition, not sell or transfer it, and produce it as and when required. The respondents were directed to complete adjudication within three months.
Law Points
- Provisional release of seized goods
- Customs Act
- 1962
- Section 110
- Section 111
- Section 151A
- Import policy
- Prohibited goods
- Seizure
- Bond
- Security
Case Details
2020 LawText (BOM) (09) 31
Writ Petition (St.) No.5739 of 2020
Ujjal Bhuyan, Abhay Ahuja
Dr. Sujay Kantawala, Mr. Brijesh Pathak, Ms. Aishwarya Kantalala for Petitioner; Mr. Pradeep Jetly, Mr. J. B. Mishra for Respondents
Union of India and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking direction for provisional release of seized car.
Remedy Sought
Direction to respondents to provisionally release the car imported by the petitioner and seized vide seizure memo dated 20.03.2020.
Filing Reason
Petitioner's car was seized by customs authorities on suspicion of being a 1967 model imported in violation of import policy; petitioner sought provisional release but no decision was taken, and CESTAT was non-functional.
Previous Decisions
Petitioner had deposited customs duty of Rs.72,48,875.00; car was seized on 20.03.2020; petitioner filed appeal before CESTAT on 22.06.2020 but CESTAT was non-functional till 31.07.2020.
Issues
Whether the petitioner is entitled to provisional release of the seized car pending adjudication by the customs authorities.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that he had paid full customs duty and the car was a brand new 2019 model; seizure was unjustified; provisional release should be granted to avoid hardship.
Respondents argued that the car appeared to be a 1967 model, around 50-60 years old, with modifications, and was imported in violation of import policy, thus a prohibited good; seizure was valid.
Ratio Decidendi
Provisional release of seized goods can be ordered by the court pending adjudication to prevent hardship, subject to conditions safeguarding revenue and ensuring compliance with law. The court has power under Article 226 to direct such release when the statutory remedy is not effective.
Judgment Excerpts
By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks a direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to provisionally release the car imported by the petitioner and which has been seized by the said respondents vide seizure memo dated 20.03.2020.
Considering the above, we are of the view that interest of justice would be served if the seized car is provisionally released to the petitioner pending adjudication subject to certain conditions.
Procedural History
Petitioner imported car and paid duty; car detained and seized on 20.03.2020; petitioner requested provisional release but no decision; filed appeal before CESTAT on 22.06.2020; CESTAT non-functional; filed writ petition on 08.09.2020; court heard and disposed of petition on same day.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
- Customs Act, 1962: Section 110, Section 111, Section 151A
