2019 (5) TMI 1364 - HC - Customs

Furnishing of bank guarantee of ₹ 6 lakh for release of vehicle - detention of Hummer H2 car imported by an NRI - release of seized vehicle - HELD THAT - This Court tried to find out from the learned Standing Counsel about the basis for either percentage or the value upon which ₹ 6 lakh is directed to be deposited. He fairly states that the letter dated 05.03.2019 does not disclose those details. However he refers to Ext.P2 and states that the officer has undertaken notional exercise and fixed ₹ 6 lakh. The investigation pursuant to Exts.P3 and P4 are still pending, therefore, the petitioner cannot be allowed to seek release of vehicle without conditions. Hence this Court is also of the view that the conditions covered by the paragraph 1(i) to (iii) are tenable. Condition No. 2 calling upon the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee for a sum of ₹ 6 lakh is examined by this order. This Court upon careful consideration of the taxes/duties alleged to have been paid on the vehicle, the value of the vehicle etc., imposing a further condition of ₹ 6 lakh for releasing the vehicle appears to be onerous on the petitioner to enjoy the possession of the vehicle in the interregnum.

Summary

Issues:
1. Seizure and detention of an imported car.
2. Legality of the conditions imposed by the Department.
3. Requirement of bank guarantee for the release of the vehicle.

Seizure and Detention of Imported Car:
The petitioner claimed to have purchased an imported car that was seized and kept in custody by the 3rd respondent. The petitioner sought various reliefs, including the release of the car and compensation for its detention. The 1st respondent opposed the writ petition. The petitioner argued that the continued possession of the vehicle by the 3rd respondent was illegal, as the vehicle had already undergone all necessary procedures at the time of import. The petitioner challenged the conditions imposed by the Department, stating that they were onerous and unnecessary. The Court considered the legality of the seizure and detention, along with the conditions imposed on the petitioner.

Legality of Conditions Imposed by the Department:
The conditions imposed by the Department, including executing a bond and furnishing a bank guarantee, were challenged by the petitioner as being excessive. The petitioner agreed to comply with certain conditions but objected to the requirement of a bank guarantee. The Department argued that the conditions were necessary to preserve the vehicle and ensure the recovery of any dues. The Court examined the conditions and found that while some conditions were acceptable, the requirement of a bank guarantee of ?6 lakh was deemed excessive and burdensome on the petitioner. The Court modified the condition, reducing the bank guarantee amount to ?3 lakhs and imposed additional conditions for the release of the vehicle.

Requirement of Bank Guarantee for Vehicle Release:
The main controversy between the petitioner and the respondents revolved around the demand for a bank guarantee of ?6 lakhs for the release of the vehicle. The Court found that the amount was disproportionate considering the taxes and duties paid on the vehicle. After careful consideration, the Court modified the condition, reducing the bank guarantee amount to ?3 lakhs. The Court also directed the completion of the investigation within three months, with the petitioner's cooperation, and clarified that the interim arrangement did not express any view on the merits of the case. The decision aimed to balance the interests of both parties while ensuring the proper resolution of the matter.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Court's decision regarding the seizure, detention, and release conditions of the imported car.