2014 (11) TMI 418 - HC - Customs

Court denies certiorari and mandamus, allows application for gold release under Customs Act

M/s. Aimr Jewels Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of UP. And 4 Others

The Court declined to grant the writs of certiorari and mandamus sought by the petitioner regarding the seizure of gold and a motor vehicle. However, the ... Seizure of goods u/s 110A - Provisional release of 12 kgs of gold seized by the fifth respondent - Held that:- At this stage, the only prayer which can be considered by the Court is the alternate prayer for a direction that an order may be passed in accordance with law on an application for provisional release under Section 110A of the Act. Since a specific objection has been raised on behalf of the Customs Department that no formal application has been filed for provisional release under Section 110A of the Act, we permit the petitioner to move the competent authority by filing an application for provisional release under Section 110A of the Act - Petition disposed of. Issues:1. Writ of certiorari for quashing a seizure memo dated 30 August 20142. Writ of mandamus for the release of 12 kgs of gold seized3. Direction for provisional release of the seized gold under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 19624. Direction for possession of a motor vehicleAnalysis:The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash a seizure memo dated 30 August 2014 issued by the Inspector of Customs (Preventive) Division, Bareilly, and a writ of mandamus for the release of 12 kgs of gold seized by the fifth respondent. Additionally, the petitioner requested a direction for the provisional release of the seized gold under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, and possession of a motor vehicle. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Bareilly, filed a counter affidavit stating that the gold bars were illegally imported and concealed in a specially fabricated cavity in a motor vehicle. The Customs Officers obtained knowledge of the seizure from the Commercial Tax Department and seized the goods and vehicle. The counter affidavit highlighted discrepancies in the chain of purchase and markings on the gold bars, indicating a Swiss origin contrary to the claimed UAE purchase. Despite summons, the petitioner did not appear, and the serial numbers on the gold bars were tampered with. The counter affidavit also mentioned that the petitioner did not apply for provisional release under Section 110A of the Act.The Court considered only the alternate prayer for a direction to pass an order for provisional release under Section 110A of the Act since no formal application was filed for the same. The petitioner was permitted to move the competent authority by submitting an application for provisional release under Section 110A. Based on the facts presented, the Court declined to grant any other relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner was directed to file an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Customs (Preventive) Division, Bareilly, for the provisional release of the gold, which would be reviewed and decided expeditiously, preferably within a month. The petitioner was also allowed to apply for the release of the vehicle. The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's claim to be presented in the application. The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.