2020 (3) TMI 927 - HC - Customs

Smuggling - Gold - confiscation of vehicle - HELD THAT - It can very well be seen that it was based on the affidavit of the Commissioner of Customs that the respondent herein had withdrawn the writ petition and had approached the Learned Magistrate. There is no merits in the submission of the Learned standing counsel appearing for the petitioner that the order passed by the Learned Magistrate is illegal. The respondent cannot be made to run from pillar to post to get his vehicle released. The petitioner cannot be permitted to take vacillating stands before this Court to harass the respondent. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Interim release of a Honda City Car seized in connection with smuggling activities under the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application for the interim release of a Honda City Car seized in connection with alleged smuggling activities. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) challenged the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate allowing the release of the vehicle. The DRI contended that the vehicle is liable to be confiscated under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, and argued that an application under Section 451 of the Cr. P.C. is not maintainable. The DRI relied on the decision in Thomas and Others v. Union of India to support its contention that seized properties under the Customs Act should be dealt with by competent authorities under the Act, specifically the Commissioner of Customs, Kochi, for provisional release under Section 110(A) of the Customs Act.

On the other hand, the respondent's counsel argued that the wife of the respondent had previously filed a writ petition seeking the release of the vehicle, which was later withdrawn based on the advice of the Commissioner of Customs to approach the criminal court under Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The respondent then approached the Learned Magistrate, who allowed the petition for release of the vehicle. The counsel emphasized that the respondent should not be subjected to unnecessary delays and litigation in seeking the release of the vehicle.

The court examined the submissions and the counter affidavit filed by the Commissioner of Customs, which advised the petitioner to approach the Criminal Court for the release of the vehicle. The court noted that the respondent had withdrawn the writ petition based on this advice and approached the Magistrate. In light of these circumstances, the court found no merit in the petitioner's argument that the Magistrate's order was illegal. The court emphasized that the petitioner should not be allowed to adopt vacillating stands to harass the respondent and concluded that there was no reason to interfere with the impugned order, ultimately dismissing the petition.