2023 (6) TMI 861 - HC - Customs

Registration of vehicle purchased by the petitioner in the auction - Customs department auctioned the vehicle since the importer did not clear the vehicle and it was lying in the customs warehouse. - grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the clarification given by the Customs Department and also the concerned Ministry, the first respondent was dragging his feet and was not registering the vehicle - HELD THAT - The first respondent entertained certain doubts with regard to registration of the vehicle in the name of the petitioner. In the first instance, the second respondent had clarified the doubts raised by the first respondent and through communication dated 15.07.2022 had made it clear that the auctioned vehicle can be registered in the name of the petitioner. Even thereafter, the first respondent sought for a clarification from the Director General of Foreign Trade. The Joint Director General of Foreign Trade had clarified through communication dated 15.02.2023 that the DGFT has no role in the matter and the customs has already clarified the same. In view of this communication, there is no reason as to why the first respondent is delaying the registration of the vehicle in the name of the petitioner. If the petitioner has satisfied all the other requirements, there shall be a direction to the first respondent to receive the application from the petitioner and to act upon the same and register the vehicle in the name of the petitioner - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the registration of a subject vehicle purchased in an auction conducted by the second respondent and the delays in registration by the first respondent despite clarifications from relevant authorities.

Summary:

Registration of Subject Vehicle:
The petitioner bought a pre-used vehicle in an auction conducted by the second respondent after the original importer abandoned it. The petitioner successfully bid for the vehicle, paid the full amount, received possession, and applied for registration with the first respondent. However, the first respondent raised doubts and eventually returned the application, leading the petitioner to file a writ petition seeking a mandamus for registration.

Clarifications and Communications:
The second respondent confirmed that the auctioned vehicle could be registered in the petitioner's name, citing relevant rules under the Customs Act, 1962, and CBIC Disposal Manual, 2019. Despite this, the first respondent sought further clarification from the Director General of Foreign Trade. The DGFT clarified that they have no role in the matter, and customs had already provided necessary clarifications. The delay in registration persisted despite these communications, prompting the petitioner to seek relief through the writ petition.

Court Decision:
The court acknowledged that all necessary clarifications had been provided by the concerned authorities, and there was no valid reason for the first respondent to delay the registration process. Therefore, the court directed the first respondent to accept the petitioner's application and complete the registration of the vehicle within four weeks from the date of the court order. The writ petition was disposed of with no costs imposed.