Case Law Details
Safir P Vs Commissioner of Customs (Kerala High Court)
Kerala High Court held that a vehicle cannot be seized by customs on an apprehension that it may be used in future as a means of transporting smuggled goods.
Facts- Petitioner is the owner of a motor car. Petitioner claims that he is residing in Dubai and doing business there. He alleges that he had handed over the car to one of his family friends as there was none to use his car at his house. Petitioner left for Dubai on 09.06.2022 and returned only on 22.11.2022. On his return, he learnt that his vehicle was seized from the parking area of the Cochin International Airport on 26.07.2022 by the Customs authorities. On further enquiry, it was revealed that two persons had travelled in his car to the airport to receive a passenger carrying 931.73 gms of gold, which was apparently smuggled into the country.
Immediately on getting information of the seizure of his vehicle, petitioner filed an application for its release. In the meantime, petitioner realised that the seizure of the vehicle was illegal as, even according to the customs, the vehicle was not used as a means of transport or as a carriage for smuggled goods. The writ petition was thus filed seeking release of his vehicle and for a declaration that the seizure is illegal and that his car cannot be confiscated under law.
Conclusion- The power of confiscation under section 115(2) of the Customs Act can arise only if the vehicle was actually used or is being used for smuggling goods and not for apprehended use or future use. Hence a vehicle cannot be seized by customs on an apprehension that it may be used in future as a means of transporting smuggled goods.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
