The Patna High Court has held that the Customs Act provides unfettered power to investigate where there are reasons to believe that there has been infraction of the provision of the Customs Act.
The bench of Justice Mohit Kumar Shah has observed that the investigation cannot be nipped in the bud and be prevented simply on the basis of certain technicalities.
The bench stated that since there is no disagreement amongst the parties regarding release of the goods/truck, liberty is granted to the owners of the goods/truck to approach the Custom authorities by filing appropriate application for provisional release whereupon the respondent Custom authorities shall release the same in accordance with their scheme/circular and upon the owners of the goods/truck furnishing adequate security, cash and bank guarantee.
The petitioner has been primarily filed for release of the seized goods and the truck, though the action of the Custom department in initiating the seizure has also been challenged.
The petitioner contended that the customs department has seized 304 bags, containing 20,520.00 kgs. of betel nuts as also the truck in question, which is also apparent from the seizure memo dated 25.01.2020. The goods and the truck are lying under the open sky, hence are likely to decay and perish, hence it would be appropriate that the same are released for which the petitioners are ready to approach the department and furnish cash and bank guarantee.
The department contended that Section 110A of the Customs Act clearly lays down that any goods, documents or things seized under section 110, may, pending the order of the adjudicating officer, be released to the owner on taking a bond from him in the proper form with such security and conditions as the Commissioner of Customs may require but the petitioner is not the owner, hence provisional release of the vehicle cannot be made at his instance.
The court granted the liberty to the petitioner to raise all the issues raised before the Custom Department at an appropriate stage and accordingly, direct the Custom Department to consider the same in accordance with law, as and when raised, and pass appropriate orders expeditiously.
Case Details
Case Title: Bishal Roadways Versus UOI
Case No.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6201 of 2020
Date: 25-08-2020
Counsel For Petitioner: Prabhat Ranjan
Counsel For Respondent: S.D. Sanjay
Read More: CESTAT Quashes Rs. 1.56 Crores Demand Against IRCTC For Alleged Wrong Cenvat Credit Availment
