Bona Fide Purchase vs. Illegal Import: Actor Dulquer Salmaan Challenges 'Arbitrary' Seizure of Land Rover in Kerala High Court

KOCHI, KERALA – The Kerala High Court has sought a response from the Customs Department in a high-profile case involving the seizure of a Land Rover Defender owned by acclaimed actor and producer Dulquer Salmaan. The actor has challenged the department's action, part of a broader investigation named "Operation Numkhor," labeling it as "arbitrary, illegal, and based on mere suspicion."

The matter, which pits the rights of a bona fide purchaser against the investigative powers of a central agency, came before a bench of Justice Ziyad Rahman on Friday, September 26. The court has directed the Customs Department to provide its instructions and has posted the case for further hearing on the upcoming Tuesday.

The case, titled Dulquer Salman v Commissioner and Others (WP(C) 35869/2025), presents a critical legal examination of the grounds for seizure under the Customs Act, 1962, and the recourse available to individuals who claim to have lawfully acquired property that later becomes the subject of an investigation.

The Petitioner's Submissions: A Claim of Good Faith and Due Diligence

Represented by Senior Advocate A Kumar, Salmaan has filed a writ petition seeking to quash the seizure memo issued on September 23, 2025, and to secure the provisional release of his vehicle.

The core of the petitioner's argument rests on his status as a good-faith purchaser for value. According to the petition, Salmaan acquired the Land Rover Defender nearly five years ago from Aarpee Promoters Pvt. Ltd. He contends that the transaction was transparent, with all payments conducted through formal banking channels.

Crucially, the petition asserts that he was provided with a comprehensive set of documents at the time of purchase, purportedly establishing the vehicle's legitimate import and clearance. These documents include the original bill of entry filed by the consignee, invoices from Land Rover and Ford, customs clearance certificates, and delivery notes. The documents reportedly list the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), New Delhi, as the original importer.

"He contended that he believed that the vehicle had valid ownership and was registered appropriately. There was no reason for him to suspect that the import or sale was illegal," the plea stated. Armed with these records, the actor claims he has been in lawful possession and use of the vehicle for half a decade without any legal challenges until the recent seizure.

The Seizure: An Allegation of Haste and Predetermination

The petition provides a detailed account of the seizure on September 23, alleging a lack of procedural fairness by the Customs officials. Salmaan argues that his representatives presented the aforementioned documents to the officials on-site, but their efforts were summarily dismissed.

"Though the available documents were handed over to the officials, there was total refusal to look into the same while carrying out the seizure in a hasty and arbitrary fashion," the petition highlighted. It further submits that the officials failed to provide proper acknowledgment for the documents and acted with a "predetermined approach," suggesting the decision to seize was made without a thorough on-the-spot enquiry.

Salmaan informed the Court that he followed up with a formal representation to the Customs authorities on September 25, once again producing all relevant documents and explaining his ownership. The refusal of the department to release the vehicle following this representation prompted him to seek redress from the High Court.

The petitioner argues that the seizure is legally untenable as it was conducted without the "reasonable belief" required under customs law, asserting that the documents he produced were sufficient to establish prima facie ownership and lawful possession.

Legal Implications and Broader Concerns

This case brings several significant legal issues to the forefront for legal professionals, particularly those practicing in customs, taxation, and administrative law.

1. The Standard of "Reasonable Belief": The cornerstone of the Customs Department's power to seize goods is the existence of a "reasonable belief" that the goods are liable to confiscation. Salmaan's petition directly challenges whether this standard was met, arguing the seizure was based on "mere suspicion." The High Court's examination of this point will be crucial in delineating the boundaries of executive power and protecting citizens from arbitrary state action.

2. Rights of a Bona Fide Purchaser: The case underscores the vulnerability of subsequent purchasers of imported goods. If the initial import is later found to be fraudulent, the law must balance the state's interest in penalizing the original offender with protecting innocent third parties who have acted in good faith. The petitioner's argument that he conducted due diligence by obtaining all necessary paperwork will be a key factor.

3. Provisional Release (Upradari): Salmaan has specifically sought the release of the vehicle on upradari (custodial release) or on other terms. This interim relief is vital, as the actor argues that prolonged detention will cause irreversible harm. He described the vehicle as a "collector's piece," and the petition notes that "seized vehicles rapidly depreciate and deteriorate without proper maintenance." The plea contends there is "no public good in destroying the value of the vehicle" while the investigation, which could be a long-drawn-out process, continues.

4. Reputational Damage: The petition also touches upon the collateral damage to his reputation, as media reports have linked the seizure to alleged smuggling and anti-state activities associated with "Operation Numkhor." This raises questions about the balance between public information during investigations and the potential for reputational harm to individuals who may ultimately be cleared of any wrongdoing.

The Customs Department's Stance

While the department is yet to file its formal response, the initial information provided suggests its action is based on the allegation that the vehicle was illegally imported from Bhutan as part of a larger smuggling racket being investigated under "Operation Numkhor." The department's counter-affidavit is expected to detail the intelligence that led to the seizure and justify its "reasonable belief" in the vehicle's illicit origins, potentially arguing that the documents possessed by Salmaan are either fraudulent or insufficient to legitimize the import.

The High Court's directive for the department to "get instructions" indicates that the bench will first seek to understand the basis of the Customs' action before deciding on the petition's admissibility or the grant of interim relief. The legal community will be watching closely as this case unfolds, as its outcome could have significant implications for the interpretation of seizure powers and the protection afforded to good-faith purchasers in India.