2009 (10) TMI 560 - HC - Customs

Release of the car - Commissioner set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs to re-export the car - entitlement of the petitioner to obtain release of the car will have to be decided either in appeal which the petitioner has already filed or in the appeal which the respondent proposes to file from Ext. P10 Held that - period of limitation for filing the appeal, not expired - it would not be proper for this Court at this stage to direct release of the vehicle to the petitioner

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs directing re-export of the car, imposition of fine, and penalty.
2. Entitlement of the petitioner to obtain delivery of the car on payment of reduced fine, penalty, and customs duty.
3. Jurisdiction of the High Court to direct release of the vehicle to the petitioner.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner imported a car which was seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act and kept in the Customs Warehouse. The Commissioner of Customs passed an order (Ext. P8) directing re-export of the car, imposing a fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- and a penalty of Rs. 75,000/- on the petitioner. The petitioner appealed against this order, and the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) set aside the re-export direction, reduced the fine to Rs. 1,00,000/-, and the penalty to Rs. 40,000/-. The petitioner sought release of the car by paying the reduced amounts, which was not entertained by the department, leading to the filing of the writ petition.

2. The petitioner argued that since the appellate authority set aside the re-export direction and reduced the fine and penalty, he should be entitled to obtain the car on payment of the reduced amounts along with the customs duty. However, the respondent indicated the intention to appeal the decision before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The High Court noted that under Section 129A of the Customs Act, the respondent has the right to appeal before the Tribunal. If the Tribunal reinstates the original order (Ext. P8), the petitioner may not be able to obtain the car. The High Court emphasized that the petitioner's entitlement to release the car should be decided in the pending appeals, and the period of limitation for filing an appeal had not expired yet.

3. Considering the legal provisions and the pending appeals, the High Court concluded that it would not be appropriate to direct the release of the vehicle to the petitioner at that stage. The Court dismissed the writ petition, suggesting that the petitioner should approach the Tribunal for the reliefs sought in the petition. The High Court kept the arguments of both parties on the merits open for further consideration in the appropriate forum, emphasizing the importance of following the prescribed legal procedures and timelines in such matters.