2006 (7) TMI 73 - HC - Customs

Exemption demanded for specially designed or adapted motor car for disabled person - Without reasons no government official put any obstruction - Respondents directed to pay fifty thousand as cost to be recovered from officer of customs

Issues Involved:
1. Requirement of Customs Clearance Permit (CCP) for importing a modified vehicle for a physically handicapped person.
2. Implementation of government policy for the benefit of disabled persons.
3. Bureaucratic hurdles and incorrect application of policies by customs officials.
4. Compensation for the petitioner for undue financial burden and litigation costs.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Requirement of Customs Clearance Permit (CCP) for Importing a Modified Vehicle for a Physically Handicapped Person:
The petitioner, a disabled person suffering from polio, imported a modified vehicle under a government policy that exempted physically handicapped persons from producing a Customs Clearance Permit (CCP). Despite this, the customs authorities insisted on the CCP for vehicle clearance, leading the petitioner to file the present petition. The court noted that the exemption order explicitly stated that no CCP was necessary for such imports, provided the importer had been granted customs duty relief. The court found the customs officials' insistence on the CCP to be baseless and invalid.

2. Implementation of Government Policy for the Benefit of Disabled Persons:
The court emphasized that the government policy was designed to aid physically challenged individuals by allowing them to import specially modified vehicles at reduced customs duties. The policy aimed to alleviate the difficulties faced by disabled persons in driving standard vehicles. The court criticized the customs officials for not implementing this beneficial policy correctly and for creating unnecessary obstacles, contrary to the policy's intent.

3. Bureaucratic Hurdles and Incorrect Application of Policies by Customs Officials:
The court observed that the customs officials displayed a "bureaucratic attitude" by demanding the CCP despite clear policy directives and previous court orders. The court referenced a similar case where the Delhi High Court directed the Union of India to implement the policy correctly without creating difficulties. The court found the customs officials' actions to be an example of how beneficial government provisions can be thwarted by improper implementation.

4. Compensation for the Petitioner for Undue Financial Burden and Litigation Costs:
The petitioner had to furnish a bank guarantee for the remaining 50% of the customs duty due to the customs officials' insistence on the CCP. This led to financial burdens, including annual payments to keep the bank guarantee alive. The court noted that the petitioner had paid a significant amount over 18 years and lost interest on this amount. The court directed the respondents to pay the petitioner Rs. 50,000 towards these expenses and the costs of the petition. The court also allowed the respondents to recover this amount from the concerned customs officer by following proper procedures.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the petition, setting aside the requirement for the CCP and directing the customs authorities to cancel the bank guarantee and return it to the petitioner. The court ordered the respondents to compensate the petitioner for the undue financial burden and litigation costs incurred due to the customs officials' improper actions. The judgment underscores the need for proper implementation of beneficial government policies and holds officials accountable for creating unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles.

← Previous Next →