D. P. WADHWA ( 1 ) IN these three writ petitions (CWP Nos. 3731,3732 and 3733/94) the petitioners, who are foreign nationals, seek a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to release to them their respective cars which they say they brought into this country on the strength of carnet de passages en douane (for short carnet ) issued to them in Wien, Austria, and that they are entitled to get their cars cleared without payment of any duty on the basis of a notification No. 296/76 issued by the Central Government under section (1) of section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short the Act ). Respondents are the Union of India in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, and the Collector of Customs, New Customs House, IGI Airport, New Delhi. In answer to show cause notice issued, an affidavit has been filed by Mr. N. Venkatesh, Assistant Collector of Customs, New Delhi, denying that the case of the petitioners is covered by the aforesaid notification. ( 2 ) WE may now have the sequence of the events. Mr. Donovan, petitioner in writ petition No. 3731/94, is a holder of Ireland Passport and he says visa was issued to him by the Indian Embassy in Kathmandu which was valid upto 2 September 1994 and then extended till 5 September 1994. Mr. Baker, petitioner in writ petition No. 3732/94, is a holder of U. K. passport and visa was issued to him by the Indian Embassy at London valid upto 2 December 1994. Mr. Coventry, petitioner in writ petition No. 3733/94, is holding an Australian passport and visa was issued to him by the Embassy of India in Kathmandu valid upto 31 August 1994 and his stay extended till 8 September 1994. It appears that the stay of both Donovan and Coventry had been extended during the pendency of these petitions. All three of them purchased cars of Toyota Land Cruiser 1994 Model in Oman on 20 August 1994 having engine nos. 0137033, 0124232 and 0137497 respectively. These cars were then air lifted by Air France from Dubai to Delhi and arrived at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, on 25 August 1994. All three of them purchased cars of Toyota Land Cruiser 1994 Model in Oman on 20 August 1994 having engine nos. 0137033, 0124232 and 0137497 respectively. These cars were then air lifted by Air France from Dubai to Delhi and arrived at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, on 25 August 1994. On the following day the petitioners filed their respective Bills of Entry for home consumption respecting these cars and said that no duty was payable as per notification No. 296/76 and as per carnet de passages. It is stated that petitioners made declarations that they were not employed in India or otherwise gainfuly employed in this country and undertook to re-export the carswithin the stipulated period. It is submitted that the automobiles association which issues the carnet stands guarantee for any duties/taxes leviable upon the breach of the conditions of the carnet. Petitioners say though the Bills of Entry were checked by the staff of the customs department and documents examined, the proper officer directed release of the cars and even the passports of the petitioners were also endorsed "out of charge" and they complain that yet the cars were not released to them and they were called to the Customs House where they were confined and given all kinds of threats and they were harassed and humiliated. Petitioners say that the carnet issued to them are all valid and yet their cars are not being released without any valid reason and that the respondents are using their powers in an arbitrary and illegal fashion. In their respective affidavits filed in support of the petitions, the petitioners have given their addresses of Scotland, England arid Australia, respectively. In the case of the petitioner Donovan it is stated that he is Irish, a citizen of Ireland, and the address given is that of Scotland, U. K. They all claim to be foreign tourists. While Donovan says he is working as a Works Project Manager in the Nepal Trust at Kathmandu, Nepal, Baker says he is a retired businessman and Coventry claims to be a registered engineering surveyor and a hotel owner. ( 3 ) RESPONDENTS have denied the allegations of the petitioners and also the harassment and inconvenience caused to any of the petitioners. They also denied that cars were allowed to be cleared for home consumption. ( 3 ) RESPONDENTS have denied the allegations of the petitioners and also the harassment and inconvenience caused to any of the petitioners. They also denied that cars were allowed to be cleared for home consumption. They say action against the petitioners is being contemplated under the provisions of the Act. They say that the petitioners do not appear to be bona fide tourists and further that carnets filed by them also do not appear to be valid. They further say that the Act provides a complete Code and this court should not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Mr. Venkatesh, Assistant Collector, in his affidavit submitted that the petitioners did not produce any documents like invoice, registration book or any other document to the effect that the cars belong to the petitioners. He said essential requirements for exemption under the carnet were not met. Statements of the petitioners were recorded under section 108 of the Act. All the three cars were new and had been air lifted from Dubai by one of the petitioners, namely, Mr. Baker (Writ Petition No. 3732/94) in the names of the petitioners C/o Mr. Shukla Nath, 39, Prithvi Raj Road, New Delhi. Carnet had been issued to Mr. Donovan at the address Margarethengurtel 144/21, A-1050 Wien, that to Mr. Baker at the address Vorgartenstr 84/8, A-1220 Wien, and to Coventry at the address Margarethengurtel 144/21, A-1050 Wien. These addresses certainly are not the normal residential or business addresses of the. petitioners as per the requirements of the carnet. Carnets also do not give the registered number of any of the cars and also do not bear the signatures of any of the petitioners. The cars do not have any registration number. ( 4 ) PETITIONERS have made contradictory statements. Mr. Baker (CWP No. 3732/94) in his statement recorded on 27 August 1994 said that he had come to India for the first time on 25 May 1994 for a holiday and left on 29 May 1994. He said he remained in Bombay during this period and again came to India on 16 June 1994 with a vehicle (Land Crusiser) on carnet. He said that car was re-exported to Nepal and from there he took that to Tibet where he sold the car for US dollars 32,000 and flew back to London. He said he remained in Bombay during this period and again came to India on 16 June 1994 with a vehicle (Land Crusiser) on carnet. He said that car was re-exported to Nepal and from there he took that to Tibet where he sold the car for US dollars 32,000 and flew back to London. Again he came to India on 19 July 1994 and brought yet another new car on carnet. This car he got released from the Indian customs on 23 July 1994, took it to Nepal Ganj Border, Nepal, after 2-3 days and then to Tibet and sold that car for US dollars 32,000. He again flew back to London. Then on 26 August 1994 he came to India for the fourth time and brought one new car Toyota Land Cruiser which he planned to re-export to Nepal from Nepal Ganj Border and he said he planned to sell the same in Tibet. In his subsequent statement recorded on 1 September 1. 994, Mr. Baker said that his earlier statement was recorded under coercion. That any threat or coercion was used has been stoutly denied by. the respondents. In his statement recorded on 1 September 1994 under section 108 of the Act, Mr. Baker said he had visited Vienna 3-4 times a year where he shared a rented accommodation and became member of Automobiles Association there in April 1994. He said he purchased the car in question in Oman for about US dollars 21,000 and he also funded the cars purchased by Mr. Donovan (CWP No. 3731/94) and Mr. Coventry (CWP No. 3733/94 ). He said guarantee money for all these three cars was arranged by Mr. P. Hein to the Automobile Association, Vienna. He said he would donate this car to a non-profitable trust in Tibet. He further said that,he had imported a car six weeks earlier along with his friends Mr. Donovan and Mr. Coventry who had also imported their cars on the carnets. In this statement also he admitted having brought two cars in June and July last and he took them to Nepal and exported out of Nepal to Tibet. Mr. Donovan in his statement said that. the car in question belonged to him and had been financed by him. He said there was no necessity to discuss or diclose his private, finance or method of payment without legal counsel. Mr. Donovan in his statement said that. the car in question belonged to him and had been financed by him. He said there was no necessity to discuss or diclose his private, finance or method of payment without legal counsel. He admitted earlier also he had brought a car into India on carnet which he said he drove throughout Nepal as a tourist and took the same to the Tibet Border where the car was taken into Tibet by his Tibetan associates . He said he procured the membership of the Automobile Association at Vienna through his friend. Peter Hein whom he had authorised, to act for him as a signatory in Austria, and that his friend had given the guarantee to the Automobile Association there. Mr. Coventry in his statement said that he had brought one more car on carnet in July last which he drove to Nepal and then presented it to his friend at Tibet Border. He said the present car was purchased by him through Mr. Baker who he said had gone to Oman and who shipped the same to Delhi. ( 5 ) THE conduct of the petitioners raised a doubt in the minds of the authorities if they could be bona fide tourists and if thecarnet on the basis of which they sought clearnace of the cars without payment of duty under the notification No. 296/76 was at all a valid document. Mr. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioners, said that the petitioners believed that carnets could have been signed at the time they were presented to the customs authorities, and that carnets satisfied all the formalities which were required under the Convention (Customs convention on the Temporary Importation of Private Road Vehicles) to which India was a party. He said it was immaterial as to how many times the petitioners came to India with carnets, and what they did with the cars so long these had been re-exported out of India through Nepal and as to what the petitioners did to the cars there, was no concern of the respondents. He also said that it was also immaterial if the registration numbers of the cars were not mentioned on the carnets as he said the cars were new and since they were immediately exported from Oman it was not necessary to have registration numbers in that country. He also said that it was also immaterial if the registration numbers of the cars were not mentioned on the carnets as he said the cars were new and since they were immediately exported from Oman it was not necessary to have registration numbers in that country. In the petitions, the petitioners relied on the definition of "tourist" as given in the Tourist Baggage Rules, 1978. . Under this definition, tourist means any person not normally resident in India, who enters India for a stay of not more than six months in the course of any twelve months period for legitimate non immigrant purposes such as touring, recreation, sports, health, family reasons, study, religious pilgrimages or business. Similar is the definition of "tourist" in the convention concerning customs facilities for touring. Mr. Garg laid stress on the word "business" as well as given in the definition. We may reproduce the notification No. 296/76 in question in relevant part :- "exemption to certain vehicles etc. imported by Tourists under Triptyque or carnet de passage.- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section 1) of section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 196. 2), the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts goods specified in column (2) of the Table below when imported into India, from te duty of customs and the additional duty leviable thereon to the extent indicated in the corresponding entry in column (3) of the said Table, subject to the conditions specified in the corresponding entry in column (4), thereof. TABLE Sl. Name of the Extent of Conditions of No. goods. Exemption. Exemption (1) (2) (3) (4) 1. (a)Vehicles as Whole of the (1)The importer shall: defined in Artiduty of Customs (a) be a member of cle 1 of the leviable thereon anautomobile Club Convention, under the First or Association belonging (b) Fuel and Schedule to the to the Federation of component parts Customs Tariff Alliancelnternationale referred to in Act, 1975 (51 of Detourisme; Articles 3 and 1975), and the (b) produce to the 4 respectively additional duty proper officer for the. of the Convention, leviable thereon purpose of the same A" -. under section 3 being duly signed of the said Act. and stamped by him the trip-tyque or. of the Convention, leviable thereon purpose of the same A" -. under section 3 being duly signed of the said Act. and stamped by him the trip-tyque or. carnets de ; passages,en- douane issued by the Alliance passages-en-douane issued by , , the Alliance Internationale De. Tourisme in the form approved and issued to him by a , Club or Association guaranteed by the Federation of Indian Automobile ~ Association and in respect of which all the rules and conditions relating. to triptyque or carnets de passages-en- douane have been complied with and (c) satisfy the proper officer that the vehicles and components" parts which he has imported, correspond in all respects with those described in the triptyque or carnets doe passages-en-douane and for this purpose produce the said vehicles and component parts for examination and record of particulars by such officer. (2) The period of retention of the vehicle in India does not exceed six months: - Provided that Where a vehicle imported under triptyque or carnets do passages-endouane is exported out of India and is re-imported within the period of six months from the date of its exportation from India, then for the purpose of determining the total period of retention of the vehicles in India after such reimport will be added to the period of its retention in India after first importation; Provided further that where. the Central Government is satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, it may extend the period of six months by a further period of six months. (3) Generally subject to the provisions of the Convention. ( 6 ) THE question, whether the case of the petitioners is covered by the notification, is to be decided by the authorities who are implementing the provisions of the Act. The respondents have doubts about the genuineness of the carnets and the bona fides of the petitioners as tourists. It cannot be said that their doubts are not without any basis. It is also not clear to us as to why the cars were imported into India though the ultimate destination was Nepal and when there are various airlines operating from Dubai to Nepal and why India is used only as a transit point. Perhaps, it was mentioned to us that there was no air cargo service between Dubai and Kathmandu. It is also not clear to us as to why the cars were imported into India though the ultimate destination was Nepal and when there are various airlines operating from Dubai to Nepal and why India is used only as a transit point. Perhaps, it was mentioned to us that there was no air cargo service between Dubai and Kathmandu. Our attention was drawn to a decision of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal rendered by a Judicial Member of the Tribunal in William Murphy v. Collector of Customs, 1990 (46) E. L. T. 260. In that case in some what similar circumstances the Additional Collector of Customs levied a fine of Rs. 50,000/- on the petitioner and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- and allowed re-export of the vehicle brought on carnet. In appeal the Tribunal upheld the order. It was held that the provisions of the Import Control Order stood violated. ( 7 ) ARTICLE 28 of the Convention provides as under :- In the event of fraud, contravention or abuse the Contracting States shall, notwithstanding the provisions of this Convention, be free to take proceedings against persons using temporary importation papers, for the recovery of the import duties and import taxes and also for the imposition of any penalties to which such persons have rendered themselves liable. In such cases, the guaranteeing associations shall lend their assistance to the Customs authorities. " ( 8 ) IN the affidavit filed by Mr. Venkatesh, Assistant Collector, in the case of Mr. Baker, he said the petitioner met him on 6 September 1994 and was asked whether he wanted a show cause notice or any personal hearing in his case. In reply the petitioner said that he would let him know latest by the next day, i. e. , 7 September 1994, but instead of meeting him the petitioner filed the present writ petition. We do not wish to say anything on the merit of the case as any observation made by us is likely to prejudice the case of either of the parties. In the circumstances of the present case it should be left to the adjudication authorities under the act to decide the issues raised in the present petition. We, therefore, find no merit in these petitions and would dismiss the same with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 2,000/- in each of the petitions. In the circumstances of the present case it should be left to the adjudication authorities under the act to decide the issues raised in the present petition. We, therefore, find no merit in these petitions and would dismiss the same with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 2,000/- in each of the petitions. We, however, direct that adjudication proceedings under the Act be completed with utmost expedition.