Court Orders Release of Aircraft Engine Detained by Customs with Conditions

The Court directed the release of an aircraft engine detained by Customs authorities, subject to conditions. The petitioner, a lessor of aircrafts, argued for release based on duty drawback entitlement. Customs authorities detained the engine as an import subject to duty, disputed by the petitioner. The Court ordered a bank guarantee of Rs. 8 crores and a deposit of Rs. 1 crore for release, pending adjudication by Customs authorities. The release was not a determination of the case's merits, preserving parties' rights. The writ petition was disposed of, canceling prior dates, pending final adjudication.

---

---

Issues:
Release of aircraft engine detained by Customs authorities, dispute over duty drawback entitlement, legality of detention under Customs Act, conditions for release of engine, pending adjudication on the matter.

Analysis:
The petitioner, who had leased aircrafts to M/s. Kingfisher Airlines, sought direction for the release of its aircraft engine detained by Customs authorities. The engine in question was not imported but flown in to be fitted in an aircraft due to cannibalization by M/s. Kingfisher Airlines. Customs authorities detained the engine under Section 110A, considering it as an import subject to duty. The petitioner argued that the engine's detention was unwarranted, claiming entitlement to 98% duty drawback based on certain circulars. However, the Revenue disputed this, asserting the petitioner's liability to pay duty, interest, and potential penalties. The duty amount was stated to be Rs. 8.69 crores, with interest around Rs. 1.30 crores. The Court acknowledged the purpose of bringing in the engine to enable the aircraft to fly and directed its release subject to conditions.

The Court ordered the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs. 8 crores and deposit Rs. 1 crore with the Customs Department for the engine's release. It instructed Customs authorities to adjudicate on the proceedings and make appropriate orders after considering all contentions. The petitioner was required to comply with all formalities for the engine's release, including filing necessary documents. Post-release, the engine was permitted to be re-exported, with the order not indicating a stance on the case's merits, preserving parties' rights and contentions. The release was contingent on the final outcome of the adjudication, and the writ petition was disposed of accordingly, canceling any previously set dates.

---