The Bombay High Court directed the provisional release of the vehicle on furnishing bond for 10% of the value of goods seized.
The Petitioner, Haresh S. Bhanushali sought the release of the vehicle detained by the customs authorities since November 4, 2019 and has challenged the provisional release Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Preventive).
The Petitioner is engaged in transport business and is proprietor of M/s. Jalaram Container Movers having its office in Mumbai. Petitioner is the owner of a transport vehicle i.e. a trailer.
M/s. Atharv Enterprises was involved in the illegal import of “counterfeit branded” goods by misdescribing them as “unbranded” goods. One such consignment of the importer arrived under the bill of entry and was lying at M/s ICT & PL Customer Freight Station (CFS), Nhava Sheva.
On verification of the bill of entry it was found that the address of the importer was incorrect, hence the container was put on hold. On examination of the consignment, it was found that the consignment not only contained the declared items, but also contained other items which were not declared. Therefore, the entire shipment was liable for confiscation. Accordingly, they were seized. The seized goods alongwith the container were thereafter handed over to ULA, CFS Uran.
The grievance of the petitioner expressing hardship on account of availing bank loan for purchase of the seized vehicle; that he is paying monthly EMI of Rs. 33,437.00 to the bank; since November 4, 2019 his vehicle is lying stationery and not in use; it was his only source of income and he has no connection with the importer needs consideration.
The court noted that there is a clear distinction between the conveyance used to transport the seized goods and the action of the importer which will be the subject matter of investigation. Both the issues relate to two different parties.
The court noticed that it prima facie, appears that though the petitioner’s vehicle was hired for transportation of the seized goods, petitioner had no direct or indirect role in so far as the tampering and removal of goods was concerned.
Therefore, the division bench of Justices Milind N.Jadhav and Ujjal Bhuyan detected the provisional release of the vehicle after the petitioner shall furnishing a bond for 10% of the value of goods seized as a precondition for the release of the vehicle and the undertaking that he shall cooperate with the investigation and appear before the investigating authorities as and when required.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. We welcome your comments at info@taxscan.in
