Case Law Details
Eburamusa Sherif Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs (Madras High Court)
In the case of Eburamusa Sherif vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs, the Madras High Court considered a writ petition seeking the quashing of an order that rejected the petitioner’s request for the return of a seized car and cash. The court heard arguments from both parties and decided to grant partial relief to the petitioner.
The petitioner claimed that they were not served with a Mahazar (a document of seizure) when the car and cash were confiscated. They argued that retaining the car would lead to rusting and depreciation, and they were willing to cooperate with further proceedings. On the other hand, the respondents contended that the investigation was not complete and the car was used for smuggling gold.
After considering both sides’ arguments, the court ordered the provisional release of the petitioner’s car, a Maruti Suzuki Vitara Brezza, under specific conditions. The petitioner must furnish a bank guarantee for Rs. 1,00,000 and execute a bond undertaking to pay any fines or penalties imposed after adjudication of the proceedings under the Customs Act. The petitioner must also register a charge with the Regional Transport Office and maintain the car in good condition with renewed insurance.
The Madras High Court’s decision allowed for the provisional release of the seized car under certain conditions, while the cash would be released, confiscated, or appropriated based on the outcome of the proposed proceedings. The court’s order addressed the petitioner’s concerns and set forth requirements to ensure compliance during the ongoing investigation.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
This writ petition has been filed to quash the impugned order rejecting the request of the petitioner to return the car bearing No.TN 04-AV-1374 and cash Rs.1,24.000/- dated 26.11.2022 seized from the petitioner and two others.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has not been served with Mahazar although the car and cash were seized. It is submitted that the petitioner is willing to co-operate for further proceeding. It is submitted that no useful purpose will be served by retaining the car by the respondents as the car is prone to rusting and depreciation if it is not motored/ operated and / or used. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is willing to execute any bond or any other securities that may be required to release the car.
3. The learned Senior Panel Counsel for the second and third respondents on the other hand submits that this writ petition is premature in as much as the investigation is not complete. It is submitted that the car was used for smuggling gold imported by passengers. It is submitted that the petitioner had attempted to facilitate the commission of offence and therefore the subject car was seized and is liable to be confiscated under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962.
4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Junior Panel counsel for the first respondent and the learned Senior Panel counsel for the second and third respondents.
5. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides, Court is inclined to give partial relief to the petitioner by ordering release of the petitioner’s car viz., Maruti Suzuki Vitara Brezza bearing Registration No.TN 04-AV-1374 to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) the petitioner shall furnish a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as security to the second respondent and renewed from time to time.
(ii) a further security in the form of bond in favour of the second respondent shall be executed undertaking to pay fine and penalty that may be imposed on the petitioner after adjudication of the proceedings under the the Customs Act, 1962.
(iii) the petitioner shall also give an undertaking to the second respondent to not to sell the car or encumber it without knowledge or intimation to the respondents.
(iv) A charge to that effect shall be registered with the Regional Transport Office where the car is registered.
(v) The petitioner shall maintain the car in good condition and renew the Insurance .
6. On compliance of the above conditions by the petitioner, the said car shall be provisionally released by the second respondent within three days. The cash seized shall be released/or confiscated and /or appropriated towards penalty if only any after adjudication of the proposed proceedings.
7. This writ petition stands disposed of with the above observations. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
