1997 (8) TMI 84 - HC - Customs

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the seizure of the trailer under the Customs Act.
2. Whether the petitioner can seek the release of the trailer pending investigation.
3. Compliance with the procedural requirements under Section 110 of the Customs Act.
4. Petitioner's entitlement to interim custody of the trailer.
5. Conditions for the release of the trailer.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Seizure of the Trailer Under the Customs Act:
The trailer bearing registration No. TMT 5637 was seized by the Customs Department on 16-1-1997 under a mahazar. The seizure was based on the suspicion that the trailer was used to transport sandalwood logs intended for illegal export. The respondents stated that the trailer was involved in the smuggling activities, and thus, it was seized for further investigation.

2. Whether the Petitioner Can Seek the Release of the Trailer Pending Investigation:
The petitioner argued that under Section 115 of the Customs Act, the vehicle cannot be confiscated if the owner had no knowledge of its use in illegal activities. The petitioner, being the widow of the deceased owner, claimed that the trailer was hired out and she had no knowledge of its involvement in smuggling activities. The petitioner sought the release of the trailer on the condition that it would be returned to the authorities if required.

3. Compliance with the Procedural Requirements Under Section 110 of the Customs Act:
The petitioner contended that under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, if no notice is given within six months of the seizure, the goods must be returned. The petitioner claimed that no show cause notice was served upon her within the stipulated period, and hence, the trailer should be returned. The respondents argued that notices were sent but were returned undelivered, and thus, the petitioner was evading service. They cited a decision of the Division Bench in W.A. No. 791 of 1995, which held that sending notices is sufficient to presume service.

4. Petitioner's Entitlement to Interim Custody of the Trailer:
The court noted that the trailer was essential for the petitioner's livelihood and that it was deteriorating due to exposure to the elements. The petitioner had cooperated with the authorities by surrendering the trailer and had no involvement in the smuggling activities. The court found that the procedural requirements for serving the notice were not met as the notices were returned unserved and no further steps were taken by the Customs Department to complete the service.

5. Conditions for the Release of the Trailer:
The court held that the petitioner was entitled to the return of the trailer but not unconditionally. The court imposed specific conditions to ensure that the trailer would not be used for illegal activities and to secure the interests of the Customs Department. The conditions included:
- Establishing title, possession, and entitlement for the trailer by producing necessary documents.
- Undertaking not to alter, encumber, or part with the possession of the trailer.
- Undertaking not to use the trailer for illegal purposes.
- Depositing a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in cash.
- Furnishing immovable property security for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-.

The court allowed the writ appeal subject to these conditions and dismissed the connected miscellaneous petition.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the petitioner was entitled to the interim custody of the trailer pending the disposal of the confiscation proceedings, subject to the conditions imposed to safeguard the interests of the Customs Department and ensure compliance with the law.

← Previous Next →