2018 (3) TMI 1297 - HC - Customs

Release of seized vehicle - restriction from moving the vessel out of the jurisdiction of the Indian authorities/competent courts in India - Held that - an affidavit to be filed incorporating therein an undertaking of the petitioner that the subject seized vessel would be released to the petitioner only for the purpose of the fulfillment of their contractual obligation with the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation the vessel will not be moved out of the jurisdiction of the Indian authorities/competent courts in India and that in the event there is an adjudication order passed by the competent authority then subject to the legal rights of the petitioner they would abide by the same - Else and in the absence of such an affidavit-cum-undertaking the writ petition would stand dismissed without any further reference to the court.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Challenge to tribunal's orders by Revenue in higher court.
2. Release of seized vessel with conditions for fulfilling contractual obligations.
3. Filing of affidavit with undertaking by petitioner.
4. Consideration of contentions and modification of tribunal's order.

Analysis:
1. The High Court was informed during the arguments that the Revenue had challenged the tribunal's orders in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The tribunal's orders were challenged in the Hon'ble Supreme Court through civil appeals filed by the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai. The High Court noted the existence of connected civil appeals pending in the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the final orders of the Tribunal. This information was crucial for the Court to understand the legal landscape and context of the case.

2. In light of the circumstances, the Court directed the senior counsel for the petitioner to file an affidavit with an undertaking regarding the release of the seized vessel. The petitioner was required to ensure that the vessel would only be used to fulfill contractual obligations with the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation, would not be taken out of Indian jurisdiction, and would comply with any adjudication order by the competent authority. The Court set a deadline for filing the affidavit and serving a copy to the respondent's counsel. The Court made it clear that the consideration of the petitioner's request to modify the tribunal's order would be contingent upon the filing of the affidavit with the specified undertaking.

3. The Court scheduled the matter for "passing orders" on a specific date, indicating its intention to review the case after the petitioner had complied with the directive to file the affidavit with the necessary undertaking. The Court's decision to list the matter for a specific purpose and date demonstrated its procedural approach to ensure compliance with its directions and to move the case forward based on the actions of the parties involved.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the significance of the Revenue's challenge to the tribunal's orders in the higher court, the conditions imposed for the release of the seized vessel, the requirement for the petitioner to file an affidavit with a specific undertaking, and the procedural steps taken by the Court to address the issues raised during the arguments. The Court's meticulous approach in directing the parties to comply with specific requirements before considering any modifications to the tribunal's order showcased a structured and procedural handling of the case.