##PAGE1##

Reserved On : 21/08/2026 Pronounced On : 25/08/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6295 of 2025 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA Sd/-

and HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI Sd/-

=============================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ✔

=============================================

PRANAVBHAI AMBALAL PATEL S/O SHRI AMBALAL PATEL Versus ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE AHMEDABAD & ORS.

=============================================

Appearance:

MS ANJALI JHA MANISH WITH MR PARAS ANEJA WITH MR CHETAN K PANDYA(1973) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR UTKARSH R SHARMA(6157) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3 =============================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA and HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)

1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the action of the respondents in detaining his car, which was imported against Bill of Entry No.7472252 dated 26.12.2024.

BRIEF FACTS:

2. The petitioner purchased a vehicle, being a Toyota Land Cruiser, for a total price of USD 54,000 from Japan on 13.12.2024. The car was shipped against a Sea Waybill/Bill of Lading on 23.12.2024. Upon arrival of the goods, Bill of Entry bearing No.7472252 dated 26.12.2024 was filed after declaring the description of the vehicle and an assessable value of USD

54,000. The out-of-charge was given to the petitioner on

02.01.2025, after proper assessment and examination.

3. The petitioner paid stamp duty of Rs.14,621 on the vehicle on 30.12.2024 and also paid the applicable customs duty amounting to Rs.99,78,795/- on 31.12.2024. The petitioner also got the car insured. However, the registration number was awaited.

4. On 07.02.2025, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) conducted a search at the residential premises of the petitioner, detained the imported car under a Panchnama prepared on the said date, and further directed the petitioner not to deal with the said car. Summons were issued by the DRI on 14.02.2025 and 03.03.2025, asking the petitioner to appear in connection with the inquiry conducted into the import of the car. On 10.03.2025, the petitioner authorised his son to appear in connection with the summons dated 03.03.2025. Another summons dated 21.03.2025 was also issued to the petitioner. However, the petitioner could not appear on the said date. On 04.04.2025, the petitioner supplied the documents which were in his possession and also tendered an explanation. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

5. It appears that during the pendency of the writ petition, the Senior Intelligence OfÏcer, DRI, Zonal Unit, Ahmedabad, issued a seizure memo on 17.04.2026 under Section 110(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short, “the Act”), and, on 08.05.2026, a show-cause notice under Section 124 read with Section 28(4) of the Act was issued to the petitioner.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

6. Learned advocate Ms.Anjali Jha Manish assisted by learned advocate Mr.Paras Aneja and learned advocate Mr.Chetan K. Pandya, appearing for the petitioner, at the outset, has submitted that the action of the respondents in detaining the car of the petitioner runs contrary to the statutory provisions of Section 110(2) of the Act and the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Jatin Ahuja, (2025) 36 Centax 301 (SC). It is submitted that since the show-cause notice under Section 124 of the Act has been issued beyond the period of six months, the seizure automatically lapses. It is further submitted that no detention order has been passed by the authorities.

7. While inviting the attention of this Court to the interim order dated 18.09.2025 passed by the Coordinate Bench and the subsequent orders, she has submitted that the investigation was over on 08.05.2026. She has further