Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1286 (PAT)

Anil Kumar Bajpayee v. Union Of India

2002-11-27

AFTAB ALAM

body2002
Judgment 1. It is unfortunate that the Customs official should try to mislead the court and to hide behind a document which is no more than a procedural formality. The truck of the petitioner was seized in January, 1999 while carrying a consignment of betel nuts which were of third country origin. The seizure led to a confiscation proceeding and on 3.5.2001 an order was passed for the confiscation of the smuggled betel nuts alongwith the vehicle carrying it, i.e., truck of the petitioner bearing registration no.M.I.F. 2123. However, in the order of confiscation with regard to the truck an option was given to its owner, the petitioner, to have it released on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 60,000/- apart from another sum of Rs. 5,000/- by way of personal penalty. The petitioner took the matter in appeal. The appellate authority upheld the order of confiscation but reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 40,000/-. 2. The petitioner deposited the redemption fine and the amount of personal penalty on 3.7.2001 and 7.8.2001 respectively. On making payment of the fine and penalty, steps were taken forthe release of the truck in his favour. As a first step, the petitioner was required to sign a receipt regarding the delivery of the truck at the office situate in the Central Revenue Building. The petitioner signed the delivery reqeipt on 1.11.2001 stating that he had received the truck no. M.I.F. 2123 aiongwith its accessories in good condition from Shri R.R. Sinha, Inspector, T.C. Unit, Custom ...... Thereafter when the petitioner went to take away his truck which was kept in a different premises at Ashiana Nagar, Patna, he found that the truck could not even be removed from that place as many of its essential parts and accessories, e.g., battery, pump, self, dynamo, seat etc. were missing. It appears that the petitioner apbroached the customs authorities for return of those essential parts and accessories iso that he may take away the truck but ihaving failed in his endeavour before the customs officials, he was finally forced to come to this court. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, they mainly try to use the delivery receipt signed by the petitioner as their shield. It is stated that the petitioner was given delivery of the truck and there after the responsibility and answerability of the respondents seized. 4. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, they mainly try to use the delivery receipt signed by the petitioner as their shield. It is stated that the petitioner was given delivery of the truck and there after the responsibility and answerability of the respondents seized. 4. It may, however, be noted that their own statements in the counter affidavit are somewhat self contradictory. In paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit a reference is made to the delivery receipt signed by the petitioner and immediately thereafter it is stated as follows : "At the time of taking delivery of said truck, the petitioner was told that some important parts of the truck, i.e., pump, self, dynamo and battery were removed and are kept in Customs Godown, Patna for safety purpose." 5. There is no averment made in the counter affidavit that the essential parts and the accessories which had been removed from the truck for safety purpose were fitted back and the truck was, therefore, in a running condition. What is stated is that the petitioner was told to collect those items from the customs godown on November 2, 2001 but the petitioner did not take delivery of those parts and accessories. 6. I find it difficult to believe that even though offered, the petitioner would not take delivery of those parts and instead come to this court spending much money and time needlessly. It rather appears to me that for safety purpose or otherwise the truck was cannibalized and no one in the customs office is now taking the trouble to refit the truck with its essential parts and accessories, removed from it earlier so as to put it back in a running condition. 7. Once the petitioner has made payment of fine and the penalty imposed the customs department is under an obligation to handover the seized truck to the petitioner in the same condition in which it was seized, that is to say, the truck must at least be in a running condition. 8. Though the court intended to have the vehicle inspected by a Motor Vehicles Inspector in order get an assessment made of its lost parts, Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Addl. SCCG appearing for the respondents intervened at this point and stated that the authorities in the customs department will take necessary steps in the light of this order. 9. 8. Though the court intended to have the vehicle inspected by a Motor Vehicles Inspector in order get an assessment made of its lost parts, Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Addl. SCCG appearing for the respondents intervened at this point and stated that the authorities in the customs department will take necessary steps in the light of this order. 9. This court appreciates the intervention of Mr. Rakesh Kumar which would save the customs department further embarassment and loss of face and this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to refit the essential parts and accessories removed from the truck and to handover the truck to the petitioner in a running condition within a month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order in the office of the Commissioner of Customs.