JATIN AHUJA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner impugns the Panchnama dated 09.05.2012 through which Respondent No. 5, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) carried out re-seizure of Maerati Quattroporte 4.2 Automatic car ("the Maserati car") and revocation of supurdarinama dated 26.4.2011.

(2.) The facts necessary in disposing of this writ petition are that the petitioner is engaged in the business of trading in imported brand new and domestically purchased second hand luxury cars, through M/s. Big Boyz Toyz Pvt. Ltd. of which he is a director. The petitioner claims that on 07-12-2010 it imported a brand new Maserati car. The fifth Respondent, by Panchnama dated 26.04.2011, in exercise of powers under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act) detained, inter alia, the Maserati car under and on the same day, handed it over to petitioner vide supurdarinama (or supradginama). Thereafter, by order dated 24.10.2011 the Commissioner of Customs (CC) extended the period for issuance of show cause notice for a further period of 6 months w.e.f. 25.10.2011 under Section 110(2) of the Act. On 09.05.2012, the fifth respondent, by panchnama cancelled the supurdarinama and took possession of the Maserati car. The petitioner seeks direction for quashing of the panchnama dated 09.05.2012 and consequent order releasing the Maserati car.

(3.) In support of the claim, learned counsel Shri. Pradeep Jain for the petitioner urged that upon expiry of the period of one year from the seizure of the Maserati car, it was entitled to an unconditional release of the same. He pointed that this one year period expired on 25.4.2012. He placed reliance on J.K. Bardolia Mills v Dy. Collector and Ors, 1994 5 SCC 332and Harbans Lal v. Collector of Central Excise & Customs, 1993 67 ELT 20.