2021 (9) TMI 609 - HC - Customs

Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - Seeking release of seized vehicle provisionally - Toyota Fortuner - HELD THAT - The affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent No.3, in paragraph Nos. 5.7.3 and 5.8, on page-253, clearly states that the petitioner has an efficacious remedy of getting the impugned vehicle provisionally released by making an application to the adjudicating authority i.e. the Additional Director General (Adjudication), DRI, Mumbai, office at New Customs House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai. This petition is disposed off with a direction to the newly added respondent No.4 i.e. the Additional Director General (Adjudication), Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Mumbai, New Customs House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai, to consider and decide the application for provisional release which may be moved by the petitioner along with a certified copy of this order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such application in accordance to law.

Summary

Issues: Petition for provisional release of seized vehicle

Upon oral request, Additional Director General (Adjudication) to be impleaded as respondent. Petitioner's grievance of vehicle seizure and repeated requests for provisional release. Previous approach to Kerala High Court. Petitioner seeks directions for provisional release. Affidavit-in-reply mentions remedy of applying to adjudicating authority for release. Court directs newly added respondent to consider and decide the application within four weeks.

The High Court addressed the issue of provisional release of a seized vehicle in response to a petition. The petitioner's counsel requested the Additional Director General (Adjudication) to be made a respondent, which was accepted. The petitioner had faced delays in the release of a Toyota Fortuner seized in 2019, despite multiple requests over two years. Previous legal actions were mentioned, including a withdrawn writ petition from the Kerala High Court. The petitioner sought directions for the provisional release of the vehicle, emphasizing the lack of response from the competent authority. The respondent's affidavit-in-reply highlighted the option for the petitioner to apply for release through the adjudicating authority. The court, considering the submissions, directed the newly added respondent to review and decide on the application for provisional release within four weeks from the date of receipt, in compliance with the law.