M/s. Bari Udyog v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
petition is disposed of by directing the Customs/DRI
Provisions considered
- Customs Act, 1962 s. 110
Judgment
Mr. Maiti, learned Advocate appearing for the Customs Authorities is not in a position to deny that the vehicles in question of the petitioner are not under seizure and he has also submitted that the Customs Authorities are not coming in the way of releasing the vehicles in question and they are willing to release the vehicles in question but took a peculiar stand that the goods in question lying on the vehicles in question have been seized and the owner of the goods has to make arrangement for keeping the goods in question, who is respondent No.4 herein, and is represented by learned Advocate, Mr. Chakrabarti. Mr. Chakrabarti submits that respondent No.4 has made series of representations and lastly on 25th January, 2022 requesting the Customs Authorities 3 concerned and DRI Authorities to intimate them Customs Bonded Warehouse, where goods in question is to be kept and the date and time. Mr.
Maiti, learned Advocate appearing for the Customs Authorities is also not in a position to deny the submission made by Mr. Chakrabarti about writing of series of the aforesaid letters. Question arises that in the dispute between the owner of the in question and the Customs and DRI Authorities, why the petitioner who is the owner of the vehicles in question will be victimized and made to suffer huge financial loss when there is a specific case of the Customs and DRI Authorities themselves that the vehicles in question have not been seized and there is no case against the said vehicles. In view of this admitted fact it can be held that detention of the vehicles in question is totally illegal and the Customs Authorities should be asked to compensate the petitioner for illegal detention of the vehicles in question without any proceeding against the vehicles and the petitioner, however, I am confining to the issue of release of vehicles in question in this writ petition.
Operative part
Considering the submission of the parties and admitted facts which appears and established from record produced before the Court, it is crystal clear 4 that the vehicles in question release of which petitioner has asked for is not under any order of seizure and it also appears from record that the respondents concerned are themselves willing to release the vehicles in question, I am of the considered respondents cannot victimize petitioner/vehicles owner and cause financial loss for fault of the petitioner and if respondents authorities have any dispute at all with the owner of the goods in question lying on the vehicles in question they are free to take all lawful action against the owner of gods in question. In view of the discussion made above this writ petition is disposed of by directing the Customs/DRI authorities concerned to release the vehicles question within three days the date of communication of this order.
It is clarified that this order is confined to the issue of release of the vehicles in question and in no way will effect any adjudication proceedings in connection with the goods in question and the respondents concerned are free to proceed with the adjudication proceedings and pass final order expeditiously. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition, being WPA 19912 of 2021 is disposed of. ( Md. Nizamuddin, J. ) 5
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: petition is disposed of by directing the Customs/DRI
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Customs Act, 1962 — s. 110.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.