AJOY NATH RAY, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition in my opinion should be disposed of in limine as the point is a short one of law only. I shall explain why it is only that. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was an Indian national residing abroad and returned to India on 9th November, 1993. ( 3 ) ON the 20th August 1992 he had bought a Mercedes Benz car in the United Kingdom paying a price of 80/90 thousand D. M. The car was registered in his favour on the 16th October, 1992. According to the public notice dated 26-6-1992 annexed at page 24 of the Writ Petition, an importation of a car is permitted under certain circumstances which is otherwise in the negative list. ( 4 ) WE need not enter into the other conditions for it suffices for our purpose to mention one of those conditions which is that "the car has been in the use of the importer for more than a year prior to his return to India". ( 5 ) IT is the admitted position that for the year prior to the return to India, though the car had been bought and registered in the name of the writ petitioner he himself was not in England for more than 10 days as he had spent the rest of the year in Singapore. ( 6 ) THE writ petitioner offered himself for an adjudication before the Collector without issuance of a show cause notice and the Collector's order dated 31-1-1994 is annexed to the writ petition. ( 7 ) THE Collector has confiscated the car and has imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 4 lac. ( 8 ) IN my opinion the above is a harsh and oppressive order against which the petitioner is entitled to relief as the reason given by the Collector on the interpretation of the condition quoted above is manifestly erroneous in law and such error appears on the face of the order. ( 9 ) AFFIDAVITS are of no help in deciding upon a question of interpretation and thus I have heard Learned Counsel on both sides regarding the interpretation itself. ( 10 ) TO my mind it is quite clear that a car continues to be in the use of a person notwithstanding he himself not being inside the car 24 hours for 365 days a year. ( 10 ) TO my mind it is quite clear that a car continues to be in the use of a person notwithstanding he himself not being inside the car 24 hours for 365 days a year. If it is the wish of the owner to keep the car garaged or to let it rot or rust even then it clearly continues to be in the use of the owner for that is the use to which the owner wishes to put it. If Jaiswal is in Singapore even for the whole of the year and the car is used only for taking the members of his family for shopping in England even then, to my mind, it is clearly in the use of Jaiswal for the whole of the year. ( 11 ) IN my opinion once an absolute purchase and an absolute ownership of the car is established beyond doubt by the importer, as in this case, it cannot but be that the car continues to be in the use of the importer unless it can be shown that he has made a Trust or put it to the use of somebody else or hired it out or has done some such thing which has substantially interfered with the absoluteness of his title or his right to immediate possession over the car. ( 12 ) THE petitioner is therefore clearly entitled to relief. The order of the Collector dated 31-1-1994 is quashed and there shall be a Rule Absolute in the nature of Certiorari in that regard. ( 13 ) THE respondents and all of them and their concerned officers, servants and agents are directed to return the car unconditionally to the petitioner within a period of a fortnight from date hereof. There shall be a Rule absolute in the form of Mandamus in this regard. The Collector is also directed to issue a detention certificate to the petitioner prior to the delivery so that the petitioner is not compelled to pay any demurrage or other detention charges to the Trustees for the Port of Calcutta or to any other authority. Stay of operation of this order is prayed for but the same is refused.