2022 (6) TMI 1342 - HC - Customs

Seeking provisional release of seized vehicle - Evasion of duty by fraudulently availing duty exemption - HELD THAT - The duty as per the respondents which is recoverable is Rs.60,13,920/-. Under the circumstances, it would be reasonable to ask the petitioner to deposit 50% of the maximum duty payable and provide bank guarantee in respect of other 50% along with necessary bond as demanded by the authority apart from an undertaking that the vehicle shall not be further encumbered or alienated pending disposal of the adjudication. The beneficial owner shall pay 50% of differential duty out of Rs.60,13,920/- and execute bank guarantee in respect of other 50% and shall keep it renewed and valid till final adjudication of case, or in the event of non-renewal of Bank Guarantee as above, the guaranteed amount be credited to the Government account by the bank on its own as prescribed in para 5 of the Circular No.35/2017-Customs dated 16.08.2017 - Shall execute a bond of Rs.29,48,000/- with an undertaking that they shall pay the duty, fine and/or penalty as may be adjudged by the Adjudicating Authority subject to appellate provisions under the Customs Act, 1962 as prescribed in para 5 of Circular No.35/2017-Customs dated 16.08.2017. Writ petition is disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty evasion and seizure of a Range Rover car.
2. Petitioner's claim for release of the seized car.
3. Challenge to the terms of the provisional release order.
4. Dispute over the conditions imposed for the release of the car.

Analysis:

1. The judgment revolves around the evasion of duty and subsequent seizure of a Range Rover car imported into India. The car was seized for fraudulently availing duty exemption amounting to Rs.60,13,920. The petitioner, claiming ownership of the car, sought its release, leading to the issuance of a provisional release order under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. The petitioner, through counsel, contested the terms of the provisional release order, deeming them harsh and arbitrary. The order required the beneficial owner to pay the full differential duty, execute a bond, and provide a substantial bank guarantee. The petitioner challenged these conditions, leading to the filing of a writ petition seeking relief from the terms imposed.

3. The respondents argued that the duty amount of Rs.60,13,920 had indeed been evaded and contended that the conditions imposed were lawful. They maintained that the petitioner was obligated to pay the duty, interest, and penalties as determined by the Adjudicating Authority. The respondents sought the dismissal of the writ petition based on these arguments.

4. After considering the arguments presented, the Court modified the conditions of release imposed in the provisional release order. The Court deemed it reasonable to require the petitioner to deposit 50% of the maximum duty payable and provide a bank guarantee for the remaining 50%. Additionally, the petitioner was directed to execute a bond and undertake not to encumber or alienate the vehicle until the adjudication process was completed. The judgment disposed of the writ petition accordingly, outlining the revised conditions for the release of the seized car.