Case Law Details
Haresh S. Bhanushali Vs Union of India and Ors. (Bombay High Court)
There is a clear distinction between the conveyance used to transport the seized goods and the action of the importer which will be the subject matter of investigation. Both the issues relate to two different parties. On perusal of the extracts of statements reproduced in the show cause cum demand notice dated 29.09.2020, it prima facie, appears that though the petitioner’s vehicle was hired for transportation of the seized goods, petitioner had no direct or indirect role in so far as the tampering and removal of goods was concerned. We may also mention that the entire tampered goods have been subsequently recovered and seized following disclosure made by Shri Kanhaiya Hurbada, employee of the clearing house agent, who owned up the mischief.
In the light of the above, the grievance of the petitioner expressing hardship on account of availing bank loan for purchase of the seized vehicle; that he is paying monthly EMI of Rs. 33,437.00 to the bank; since 04.11.2019 his vehicle is lying stationery and not in use; it was his only source of income and he has no connection with the importer needs consideration.
In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the impugned action of seizure of the petitioner’s vehicle No.MH-46-H-1284 as well as the order for provisional release of the vehicle calls for interference.
Accordingly, the provisional release order dated 14.07.2020 at Exhibit ‘D’ to the writ petition for release of vehicle No.MH-46-H-1284 of the petitioner is modified as under : :-
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
