9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 955 - HC - CustomsSeeking direction to the respondents for release of the vehicle - fraudulent import of high-end luxury vehicles by importing them into India in the name of foreign diplomat - evasion of customs duty - Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - The provisional release order dated 29.11.2021 is modified by striking off condition No.3 . Insofar condition No.1 is concerned, petitioner shall deposit 50% of the duty amount mentioned therein by way of cash / demand draft and the remaining 50% shall be covered by way of bank guarantee of a nationalised bank. This exercise shall be done within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order whereafter the seized vehicle shall be provisionally released to the petitioner. Petition is disposed off.
Issues:
1. Legality and validity of the order dated 29.11.2021 passed by the 3rd respondent. 2. Release of the vehicle seized vide Seizure Memo dated 06.08.2021. Analysis: Issue 1: The petitioner challenged the legality and validity of the order passed by the 3rd respondent. The petitioner's vehicle, a Toyota Land Cruiser, was seized based on specific intelligence regarding fraudulent import of high-end luxury vehicles to evade customs duty. The seizure memo indicated the estimated market value of the vehicle imported under a Bill of Entry. The petitioner sought provisional release under Section 110A of the Customs Act, referencing decisions of various courts. Respondent No.3 granted provisional release on 29.11.2021, imposing conditions related to duty payment, execution of bonds, and bank guarantees. Issue 2: During the hearing, the Court found one of the conditions imposed by respondent No.3 to be harsh and unwarranted. The Court, along with the Additional Solicitor General of India, agreed to modify the provisional release order. The petitioner agreed to deposit 50% of the duty amount in cash/demand draft and the remaining 50% via a bank guarantee of a nationalized bank. Condition No.3 was struck off, and the vehicle was to be released to the petitioner within two weeks. The Court clarified that it did not delve into the case's merits, keeping all contentions open. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous applications were to be closed.
|
