The court emphasized the statutory provision for provisional release of seized goods under section 110-A and exercised its discretion to provide specific conditions for the release.

JUDGMENT :

Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

1. Heard Dr. Sujay Kantawala, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jetly, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks a direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to provisionally release the car imported by the petitioner and which has been seized by the said respondents vide seizure memo dated 20.03.2020 (Exhibit-B to the writ petition).

3. Case of the petitioner is that he has imported one brand new 2019 RHD Ford Mustang GT Coupe four passenger sports car for an amount of USD 46,730 vide bill of entry dated 11.01.2020. 4. The imported car was detained by the customs authorities and was ultimately seized on 20.03.2020. Presently it is under the custody of the Customs Department. According to the petitioner, he has deposited the customs duty on account of import of the said vehicle amounting to Rs.72,48,875.00. The declared assessable value of the vehicle is Rs.33,71,569.00. Petitioner requested the authority for provisional release of the vehicle. However, no decision was taken on such request of the petitioner. In such circumstances, it is submitted that petitioner preferred appeal along with miscellaneous application before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai on 22.06.2020. Petitioner was informed by the CESTAT Registry that it was non-functional till 31.07.2020. Faced with such a situation, the present writ petition came to be filed seeking the relief as indicated above.

4. Respondents have filed affidavit through Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mishra, Commissioner of Customs, NS-V, Nhava Sheva, Raigad. Stand taken is that on import of the vehicle vide bill of entry No.6434271 dated 11.01.2020, the assessable value was declared at Rs.33,71,569.50 and the duty of Rs.72,48,875.00 was paid. It is stated that the vehicle was examined by the customs officer on 15.01.2020 for clearance. On scrutiny of the documents and on physical examination of the vehicle amongst others by chartered engineer, it was found that there are certain modifications carried out in the vehicle wherefrom it appeared to be a second hand model. Petitioner was also unable to respond to certain queries of the customs officer. According to the customs officer, the vehicle appeared to be of the year 1967 make and thus around 50 to 60 years old. Therefore, view was taken that the car was imported by violating the relevant import policy and was thus categorized as a prohibited good.

4.1. Considering the above, the vehicle was seized on 20.03.2020 under section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 (briefly ‘the Act’ hereinafter). Petitioner made a request for provisional release of the vehicle on 20.04.2020 followed by email dated 06.05.2020. In this connection, summons were issued on 08.07.2020 for appearance of the petitioner and production of documents. In response to the summons, petitioner submitted that he had filed appeal before the CESTAT on 22.06.2020 and because of the lockdown, he was unable to appear on the date fixed. In such circumstances, respondents have contended that as the vehicle was imported to India in violation of the relevant import policy thus a prohibited good and since petitioner did not respond to the summons, question of provisional release of the imported vehicle did not arise.

5. Petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit wherein petitioner has disputed the contention of the respondents that the vehicle in question is a second hand one. Stand taken by the respondents that the vehicle is 50 to 60 years old has been disputed and denied. Examination of the vehicle by the customs officer and by others like chartered engineer has also been questioned. It is therefore contended that there is no justification for not allowing provisional release of the imported vehicle. Since 11.01.2020 the car is under detention and seizure for more than six months. The car is simply parked