2007 (3) TMI 402 - HC - Customs

Seizure - Assessee sought for a direction to release that vehicle (Mercedes Benz car) pending adjudication proceedings - Held that - pendency of this writ petition would only create bottlenecks and further proceedings before the Settlement Commission, petitioner is at liberty to raise all his contentions before the Settlement Commission, it will be open to the Settlement Commission also to consider whether the vehicles in question could be permitted to be released to the respondent. This is a matter that would gain attention of the Settlement Commission on the basis of the application of the petitioner already made to the Settlement Commission.

Summary

Issues:
1. Release of a Mercedes Benz car pending adjudication proceedings.
2. Furnishing of bank guarantee and bond for provisional release of the vehicle.
3. Adjudication proceedings completion in a time-bound manner.
4. Petitioner's possession of the vehicle amidst proceedings before the Settlement Commission.
5. Dismissal of the writ petition and liberty to raise contentions before the Settlement Commission.
6. Consideration by the Settlement Commission for releasing the vehicle to a specific respondent.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking the release of a Mercedes Benz car imported into India pending adjudication proceedings. The Court directed the provisional release of the vehicle upon the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee and bond agreeing to pay the balance differential duty upon finalization of adjudication proceedings. The Court also mandated the completion of adjudication proceedings in a time-bound manner.

2. Subsequently, it was revealed that the petitioner had furnished a bank guarantee but was also required to deposit certain amounts. Despite this, the petitioner currently possesses the vehicle. It was acknowledged that the petitioner is involved in proceedings before the Settlement Commission, which differ from adjudicating proceedings. The Court noted that the pendency of the writ petition could hinder the progress of proceedings before the Settlement Commission, where matters such as overpayments, underpayments, and liabilities would be addressed. Therefore, the Court dismissed the writ petition but granted the petitioner the liberty to present all contentions before the Settlement Commission.

3. The Court emphasized that the Settlement Commission would examine whether the vehicles in question could be released to a specific respondent based on the petitioner's application already submitted. This decision would be within the purview of the Settlement Commission, and the petitioner's submissions would be duly considered in this regard. The Court highlighted the importance of allowing the Settlement Commission to handle the matter appropriately, indicating that the petitioner's concerns and arguments could be effectively addressed through that forum.