Court Orders Customs Commissioner to Decide on Seized L.P.G. Cylinders Release Promptly

The High Court directed the respondent no.3, Additional/Deputy Commissioner of Customs, to consider and decide the petitioner's application for release of seized L.P.G. cylinders within 15 days. The Court emphasized the consideration of the petitioner's previously furnished personal bond and instructed the petitioner to provide necessary documents to the respondent for further proceedings. The judgment did not address the merits of the petitioner's claim but focused on expediting the decision on the release of the goods.

---

---

Issues:
Petitioner seeking release of seized goods (L.P.G. cylinders) and quashing of detention order.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition requesting the release of a consignment of L.P.G. cylinders and challenging an alleged detention order by the respondents. The petitioner claimed that the order had not been communicated to him. The consignment, initially carrying empty L.P.G. cylinders, was found with tortoise skin, leading to legal action against the truck driver under the Wild Life Protection Act. Subsequently, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, ordered the release of the cylinders upon the petitioner furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 12 lacs, which has not been executed yet.

Further Analysis:
The respondent no.2 argued that the petitioner had also applied for the release of the cylinders under Section 110 (A) of the Customs Act, 1962 before the respondent no.3. The petitioner's counsel emphasized that the personal bond had already been submitted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi. The High Court directed the respondent no.3, Additional/Deputy Commissioner of Customs, to consider and decide the petitioner's application within 15 days of receiving a certified copy of the order. The respondent no.3 was instructed to acknowledge the petitioner's bond and the application submitted on 15.12.2018.

Conclusion:
The High Court's judgment did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's claim but focused on directing the respondent no.3 to address the pending application for release of the seized goods. The Court emphasized the consideration of the petitioner's previously furnished personal bond while deciding on the release of the L.P.G. cylinders. The petitioner was instructed to provide a copy of the application and the court's order to the respondent no.3 for further proceedings.

---