Court quashes arbitrary vessel seizure, orders bank guarantee maintenance. Proceedings continue for duty and penalty computation.

The court quashed the seizure memo dated 12.1.2018, declaring the seizure of the vessel FC Maria Laura as arbitrary and illegal. The court directed the petitioners to keep the bank guarantee of Rs. 6 crore alive and allowed the respondents to continue proceedings for computation of duty and penalty, if any, in accordance with the law. The court emphasized that the order should not be construed as an impediment to the ongoing proceedings for recovery of dues.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the seizure of the vessel FC Maria Laura.
2. Applicability of Exemption Notification No. 94/96-Customs dated 16.12.1996.
3. Compliance with the principles of natural justice.
4. Availability of alternative remedies under the Customs Act, 1962.
5. The proper officer's "reason to believe" for seizure under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Seizure of the Vessel FC Maria Laura:
The petitioners challenged the seizure of the vessel FC Maria Laura under a Seizure Memorandum dated 12.1.2018. They argued that the vessel was re-imported following proper procedures and was cleared for home consumption by the customs authorities. The seizure, executed two years after the vessel's re-importation, was deemed arbitrary, illegal, and unauthorized. The court found that the seizure memo did not record any "reason to believe" that the import of the vessel contravened the Customs Act, 1962. The court held that the drastic action of seizure was taken without proper justification and without observing the principles of natural justice.

2. Applicability of Exemption Notification No. 94/96-Customs dated 16.12.1996:
The petitioners contended that the vessel FC Maria Laura was covered under the Exemption Notification No. 94/96-Customs, which exempts re-imported goods from customs duty under certain conditions. The court agreed that the vessel was re-imported within three years of its exportation and that it was the same vessel without any re-manufacturing or reprocessing. The court concluded that the exemption notification was applicable, and no duty was payable on the re-importation of the vessel.

3. Compliance with the Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioners argued that the seizure of the vessel was executed without issuing a show-cause notice, without providing an opportunity to file a reply, and without a hearing, violating the principles of natural justice. The court agreed, stating that the seizure was executed without extending a proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and without recording any reasons for the seizure, thus violating the principles of natural justice, fair play, and equity.

4. Availability of Alternative Remedies under the Customs Act, 1962:
The respondents contended that the petition was not maintainable as there were alternative remedies available under the Customs Act, 1962, which the petitioners had not availed. The court acknowledged that while alternative remedies were available, the issue at hand was the correctness of the extreme action of seizure, which warranted judicial review. The court emphasized that the proceedings for recovery of dues could continue, but the action of seizure was found to be unjustified.

5. The Proper Officer's "Reason to Believe" for Seizure under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The court examined whether the proper officer had a "reason to believe" that the goods were liable for confiscation under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. The court found that the seizure memo lacked any indication that the proper officer had reasonable grounds to believe that the goods were liable for confiscation. The court emphasized that the phrase "reason to believe" implies objective reasons supported by material evidence, not subjective satisfaction. The court concluded that the seizure was executed without proper grounds, making it arbitrary and high-handed.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the seizure memo dated 12.1.2018, declaring the seizure of the vessel FC Maria Laura as arbitrary and illegal. The court directed the petitioners to keep the bank guarantee of Rs. 6 crore alive and allowed the respondents to continue proceedings for computation of duty and penalty, if any, in accordance with the law. The court emphasized that the order should not be construed as an impediment to the ongoing proceedings for recovery of dues.

---