2022 (12) TMI 1255 - HC - Customs

High Court suspends clause 3 of Customs Act order, pending compliance. Statutory appeal option open.

Baani Technology Services Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence & Ors.

The High Court suspended clause 3 of the impugned order granting provisional release of goods under section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, if the ... Provisional release of the goods - alleged large scale scam involving expensive higher vehicles - HELD THAT:- In the case of SHRI. SURIYA, S/O ARJUNAN VERSUS THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, MUMBAI; THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, BENGALURU AND THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU CUSTOM HOUSE, MAHARASHTRA [2022 (6) TMI 1342 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], the High Court of Karnataka has directed the Petitioner therein to deposit 50% of differential duty and execute bank guarantee in respect of other 50%, and execute a bond - In the case of SHRI MURALI B S/O R BHASKAR VERSUS THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE NHAVA MUMBAI; THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE MANGALORE THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS JAWAHARLAL NEHRU CUSTOM HOUSE, MAHARASHTRA AND THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (SIIB) MANGALURU [2022 (9) TMI 1404 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], the High Court of Karnataka has modified the condition of execution of bank guarantee, which is referable to clause 3 in the case at hand. When the petition was heard yesterday, since the learned Counsel for the Petitioner sought parity with the orders passed by the High Courts of Karnataka and Kerala, the petition was adjourned for the Respondents to take instructions whether these orders have been challenged by the Respondents higher - the Petitioner in this petition has placed on record the details of the vehicle. Nothing is placed on record before us that the Petitioner is involved in the scam. The Petitioner has asserted that the Petitioner is a bonafide purchaser of the vehicle and this assertion has gone uncontroverted. There are no reason as to why the same view adopted by the High Courts of Karnataka and Kerala should not be adopted for the purpose of granting ad-interim order in this petition. In fact, we are retaining the deposit of differential duty in the first clause and not bifurcating for 50% of the bank guarantee - by way ad-interim order, we direct that clause 3 of the impugned order shall stand suspended if the Petitioner complies with clause nos. 1 and 2 of the impugned order, subject to further order. Stand over to 9 January 2023. Issues:Challenge to order granting provisional release of goods with imposed conditions under section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962. Alternate remedy of appeal available. Jurisdictional aspect of seizure of the vehicle. Oppression and harshness of conditions imposed. Compliance with conditions. Comparison with decisions of other High Courts. Suspension of clause 3 of the impugned order.Detailed Analysis:1. Challenge to Order and Imposed Conditions: The Petitioner challenged the order granting provisional release of goods by the Respondents under section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962. The conditions imposed included payment of a differential duty, execution of a bond, and a bank guarantee. The Petitioner considered these conditions oppressive and harsh.2. Alternate Remedy of Appeal: The Respondents argued that the Petitioner had an alternate remedy of appeal, citing previous judgments. The Petitioner contended that due to the jurisdictional issue regarding the seizure of the vehicle, appealing might not be necessary.3. Jurisdictional Aspect: The Petitioner argued that the seizure of the vehicle was done by an officer who was not the Proper Officer under the Act of 1962, citing a Supreme Court decision. The Respondents mentioned an amendment in the Finance Act and the issue of retrospective application, which was pending consideration.4. Oppression and Compliance: The Petitioner agreed to comply with the first two conditions but found the bank guarantee requirement oppressive. The Respondents highlighted an ongoing investigation into a large-scale scam related to vehicle imports through diplomatic channels.5. Comparison with Other High Court Decisions: Both parties referred to decisions of the High Courts of Karnataka and Kerala regarding similar cases of release of vehicles involved in scams. The orders from these High Courts were accepted by the parties.6. Suspension of Clause 3: After considering the arguments and the details of the case, the High Court decided to suspend clause 3 of the impugned order if the Petitioner complied with the first two conditions. The Petitioner was directed to keep the vehicle in good condition and not create third-party rights over it.7. Future Considerations: The High Court kept the issue of the availability of a statutory appeal open and informed the Petitioner that if an appeal was deemed maintainable, clause 3 of the impugned order might be restored. The matter was adjourned to 9 January 2023 for further proceedings.This detailed analysis covers the various issues involved in the legal judgment delivered by the High Court, addressing the arguments presented by both parties and the decisions made by the Court regarding the provisional release of goods and the conditions imposed.