TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Orders Review of Petitioner's Detained Motorbike for Release</h1> The court directed the respondents to review the petitioner's representations for provisional release of a detained motorbike within six weeks. The ... Confiscation of goods - Provisional release of the seized goods pending adjudication u/Sec.110-A - Held that:- respondents directed to consider within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order , the representations dated 11-12-2012 and 03-01-2013 of the petitioner for provisional release of the above motor bike u/s.110-A of the Act pending adjudication of the proceedings initiated - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues involved: Petition to declare the action of respondents in not releasing a motorbike pending adjudication as arbitrary and unreasonable, violation of Customs Act and Constitution, and seeking direction for release.Analysis:1. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to challenge the respondents' decision not to release his motorbike pending adjudication on whether it was legally imported and duties paid. The petitioner purchased the motorbike in 2011 and it was detained by the customs authorities in 2012 on suspicion of being smuggled. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, alleging smuggling and non-payment of import duties. The petitioner requested provisional release of the motorbike under Section 110-A of the Customs Act, citing concerns about potential damage due to prolonged storage and depreciation in value during adjudication and appeal proceedings.2. The petitioner argued that the law allows for provisional release of seized goods pending adjudication, and he is not liable to pay any duty as he did not import the motorbike. The petitioner expressed willingness to provide a bond and sureties as required under Section 110-A for provisional release. The petitioner's representations for provisional release were not responded to by the authorities, who orally refused without providing reasons. The petitioner highlighted the need for timely consideration of his request to prevent damage and depreciation of the motorbike.3. In the court proceedings, the petitioner's counsel reiterated the arguments for provisional release, emphasizing the lack of response from the authorities and the potential harm to the motorbike. The Standing Counsel for the respondents stated that confiscation proceedings were initiated, and the petitioner's claim of not owing any duty was untenable. The Standing Counsel assured that the representations for provisional release would be considered promptly by the authorities, and appropriate orders would be passed.4. Considering the submissions and circumstances of the case, the court directed the respondents to review the petitioner's representations for provisional release within six weeks. The court emphasized the need for timely consideration to prevent damage and depreciation of the motorbike during the adjudication process. The judgment aimed to balance the petitioner's rights with the legal procedures under the Customs Act, ensuring a fair and prompt decision on the provisional release of the motorbike pending adjudication.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
