2019 (2) TMI 32 - HC - Customs

Detention of seized goods - consignment of L.P.G. cylinders - personal bond of ₹ 12 lacs in lieu of seized cylinders is already furnished - Held that - The writ petition is disposed off with a direction to the respondent no.3 Additional/Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Division 5th and 11 Floor, Kendriya Bhawan, Sector-H Aliganj, Lucknow, to consider and decide the petitioner s application dated 15.12.2018 sent through registered post, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of 15 days from the date of production of a certified copy of this order in his office.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner seeking release of seized goods (L.P.G. cylinders) and quashing of detention order.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition requesting the release of a consignment of L.P.G. cylinders and challenging an alleged detention order by the respondents. The petitioner claimed that the order had not been communicated to him. The consignment, initially carrying empty L.P.G. cylinders, was found with tortoise skin, leading to legal action against the truck driver under the Wild Life Protection Act. Subsequently, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, ordered the release of the cylinders upon the petitioner furnishing a personal bond of ?12 lacs, which has not been executed yet.

Further Analysis:
The respondent no.2 argued that the petitioner had also applied for the release of the cylinders under Section 110 (A) of the Customs Act, 1962 before the respondent no.3. The petitioner's counsel emphasized that the personal bond had already been submitted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi. The High Court directed the respondent no.3, Additional/Deputy Commissioner of Customs, to consider and decide the petitioner's application within 15 days of receiving a certified copy of the order. The respondent no.3 was instructed to acknowledge the petitioner's bond and the application submitted on 15.12.2018.

Conclusion:
The High Court's judgment did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's claim but focused on directing the respondent no.3 to address the pending application for release of the seized goods. The Court emphasized the consideration of the petitioner's previously furnished personal bond while deciding on the release of the L.P.G. cylinders. The petitioner was instructed to provide a copy of the application and the court's order to the respondent no.3 for further proceedings.