2022 (3) TMI 240 - HC - Customs

Luxury car CEO's challenge on vehicle seizure dismissed under Customs Act.

The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the seizure memo for a fraudulently imported vehicle and seeking release of the vehicle. The petitioner, ... Seizure of seized vehicle - Bill of Entry was also forged - fraudulent availment of benefit of the exemption N/N. 3/57 dated 08.01.1957 - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the Seizure Memo impugned in the writ petition shows that the car in question was imported into India in the name of a diplomat by fraudulently availing the benefit of exemption Notification No.3 of 57 dated 08.01.1957. The vehicle was detained for further investigation and it was found that the registration of the vehicle was done in the name of a non-privileged person by forging the Bill of Entry and other documents and accordingly seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, under a reasonable belief that the vehicle was liable to confiscation under the provisions of the said Act. The Petitioner is unable to render any justification for claiming the release of the vehicle and as aforementioned has not been able to explain as to how he came in possession of the vehicle. In view of the allegations in the Seizure Memo and in the absence of the justification or grounds for release of the vehicle as well as considering the fact that as per the Seizure Memo, the Bills of Entry were forged and benefit of the exemption Notification was wrongly availed, we see no reason to interfere and set aside the Seizure Memo, at this stage. The present writ petition is wholly frivolous and misconceived and there are no reason to entertain the writ petition - petition is dismissed with costs of ₹ 1,00,000/-, to be deposited by the Petitioner with the Delhi State Legal Services Authority, within five weeks from today. Issues:Challenge to seizure memo for a vehicle import under fraudulent exemption notification, claim for release of seized vehicle, lack of justification for release, allegations of fraud and ignorance by the petitioner.Analysis:1. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash a seizure memo issued by Respondent No.1 for a TOYOTA VELLFIRE vehicle imported under a fraudulent exemption notification and requested the release of the seized vehicle. The court examined the facts and circumstances of the case.2. The petitioner, identified as the Chief Executive Officer of a company dealing with luxury car sales, services, and re-selling, claimed ignorance regarding the import of the vehicle misusing the exemption notification. However, the court noted that ignorance of the law is not an excuse, especially considering the petitioner's background in the luxury car business.3. Respondent No.1 contended that the petitioner was fully aware of the misuse of the exemption notification and the evasion of customs duty, alleging that the petitioner played fraud with the government. The seizure memo detailed the fraudulent import and registration of the vehicle, leading to its detention for further investigation under the Customs Act, 1962.4. The court highlighted that duty-free imports are conditional, and failure to fulfill the conditions results in the duty payment requirement. The seized vehicle was imported in the name of a diplomat using a fraudulent exemption notification, and its registration was forged, justifying the seizure under the Customs Act, 1962.5. The petitioner's counsel failed to provide a valid justification for the release of the vehicle and could not explain how the petitioner acquired possession of the vehicle. Given the serious allegations in the seizure memo, including forged documents and wrongful exemption availing, the court found no grounds to set aside the seizure memo at that stage.6. The court dismissed the writ petition as frivolous and misconceived, ordering the petitioner to pay costs of Rs. 1,00,000 to the Delhi State Legal Services Authority for the 'Access to Justice' program within five weeks. The judgment emphasized the seriousness of the allegations and the lack of merit in the petitioner's claims, leading to the dismissal of the petition.7. The court directed the immediate communication of the order to the Member Secretary of the Delhi State Legal Services Authority for necessary action, concluding the legal proceedings related to the challenge against the seizure memo and the claim for the release of the seized vehicle.