2015 (11) TMI 200 - HC - Customs

Provisional release of vehicle in terms of provisions contained in Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 - whether the condition(s) as imposed by the respondent for provisional release of the vehicle is onerous and smacks of whims of the Customs Authority - Held that - Respondent is directed in the light of order release the vehicle of the petitioner bearing Registration No. BR-05G-7812 on execution of the bond for full seizure value of the seized vehicle and also depositing a sum of ₹ 1,00,000/- as security deposit - Appeal disposed of.

Summary

Issues: Dispute over terms/conditions for provisional release of a vehicle seized by Customs Department under Customs Act, 1962. Challenge to the arbitrary nature of conditions imposed for release. Allegation of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Interpretation of relevant legal provisions and comparison with previous orders.

The judgment by the High Court of Patna dealt with a case involving the provisional release of a vehicle seized by the Customs Department. The petitioner, the owner of the vehicle, sought release under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962. The respondent Joint Commissioner had directed provisional release on certain conditions, including execution of a bond for the full seizure value of the vehicle. The petitioner challenged the arbitrariness of this condition, citing other cases where different conditions were imposed. The petitioner argued that such differential treatment violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The Customs Department contended that conditions for release vary based on individual cases and that the petitioner had the option to appeal the decision if dissatisfied.

The Court acknowledged the statutory right of individuals to seek provisional release under the Customs Act but focused on the fairness of the conditions imposed in this specific case. The petitioner's counsel highlighted various orders issued by the Customs Department in similar situations, alleging inconsistency in the treatment of different cases. Reference was made to a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing the Customs Authorities' power to impose fines even after goods are released on bond. After considering the arguments from both sides, the Court concluded that justice would be served by ordering the release of the vehicle upon the execution of a bond for the full seizure value and a security deposit of Rs. 1,00,000. The writ application was thus disposed of, resolving the dispute over the terms of provisional release in this particular case.