Page 1 of 5

$~3

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

W.P.(C) 3110/2022

SHRI. NIPUN MIGLANI

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Gokul Raj, Advocate.

versus

THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER AND ORS.

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Harpreet Singh, Senior Standing

Counsel with Ms. Suhani Mathur,

Advocate for R-1.

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

JUDGMENT

D.N. PATEL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL)

CM APPL. 8998/2022 (Exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 3110/2022

1.

Present Writ Petition has been preferred seeking the following

reliefs:

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000802

Page 2 of 5

2.

We have heard learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties

and looked into the facts and circumstances of the case.

3.

Petitioner lays a challenge to the Seizure Memo dated 27.10.2021

whereby Respondent No.1 has seized the vehicle “TOYOTA VELLFIRE”

bearing Registration No. MN01AG5555, the other details whereof are

given in the impugned Seizure Memo.

4.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner is unable to

point out in what capacity the Petitioner seeks release of the seized vehicle

as he is neither the purchaser nor the owner nor an importer of the said

vehicle. Surprisingly, total ignorance is sought to be made out in this

regard.

5.

Too much ignorance has been pleaded by the Petitioner.

6.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner is also unable to point out the law

under which he lays a claim to the release of the seized vehicle.

“Ignorantia juris non-excusat” (ignorance of law is no excuse). As per the

pleadings, Petitioner is the Chief Executive Officer of a Company, which is

engaged in business of sale, service and re-selling of Premier Cars and yet

the Petitioner urges that he was neither aware that the import was made

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000802

Page 3 of 5

misusing the exemption Notification with regard to the customs duty nor

was an abettor of the importer. Having dealt in the sale, etc. of the luxury

cars over the years, it can hardly be believed that the Petitioner is so

ignorant of the liability of payment of customs duty when the cars are

imported.

7.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1 strenuously

contends that Petitioner has been totally aware of the misuse of the

exemption Notification and the evasion of customs duty and has, in fact,

played fraud with the Government, which is evident from the Seizure

Memo inasmuch as the Bill of Entry was also forged. For ready reference

Paras 2 and 3 of the Seizure Memo (Annexure P-1) read as under:

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000802

Page 4 of 5

8.

It is also submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of

Respondent No.1 that whenever any motor vehicle is imported as a duty

free import, the same is conditional and if the condition is not fulfilled, the

duty is required to be paid. In the absence of payment of the duty, a charge

will be created upon the vehicle so imported and it shall be seized and

thereafter confiscated. Subsequent thereto, the vehicle will be auctioned and

the duty shall be recovered from the auction proceeds.

9.

A perusal of the Seizure Memo impugned in the writ petition shows

that the car in question was imported into India in the name of a diplomat

by fraudulently availing the benefit of exemption Notification No.3 of 57

dated 08.01.1957. The vehicle was detained for further investigation and it

was found that the registration of the vehicle was done in the name of a

non-privileged person by forging the Bill of Entry and other documents and

accordingly seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, under a

reasonable belief that the vehicle was liable to confiscation under the

provisions of the said Act.

10.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner is unable to render any

justification for claiming the release of the vehicle and as aforementioned

ha