BANGANTAVIDA NAZIR Vs. INSPECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the respondents (authorities under the Customs Act) are justified in detaining the Passport of the petitioner, pending investigation as to the alleged smuggling, is the point to be considered in this case. The petitioner is the holder of Indian Passport bearing No. I. 9526176, who is stated as doing business of interior decoration in the U.A.E. It is stated that the petitioner's family is settled in Dubai and there are three school going children. When the petitioner reached India from Dubai through the International Airport at Kochi on 30.10.2014 the checked-in-baggage of the petitioner was intercepted and some home appliances brought by the petitioner (electric rice cooker and electric hot plate) were seized stating that they contained silver coloured metallic object weighing 3.5 kg., in which presence of gold was suspected. Petitioner went back on the same day and subsequently, he came to be arrested on return, at the Airport on 14.11.2014 as evident from Ext. P1 arrest memo issued by the first respondent/Inspector of Customs. The petitioner moved the third respondent/Deputy Commissioner of Customs and was released on bail, subject to conditions, as per Ext. P3 order dated the same day. Since one of the conditions imposed while granting the bail was to surrender the Passport, the petitioner was compelled to surrender the same before the third respondent/Deputy Commissioner so as to have an exit, after satisfying the other requirements.

(2.) According to the petitioner, he has not committed any offence, nor has he got any criminal background and is not involved in any case so far. The concerned home appliances were purchased through his driver in Dubai and the petitioner was not having any idea as to the metallic alloy contained in the above appliances. It is also pointed out that the presence of gold is not established and that no case is registered against the petitioner so far. Detention of passport in the said circumstance is absolutely without any legal or factual basis and that the same has quite adversely affected the rights and interests of the petitioner in traveling abroad. It is stated that the presence of the petitioner is very much necessary at his business place and that one of his three school going children is sick and hospitalised. Since the petitioner stands prevented from going abroad, much hardships are being caused to the members of his family, who find it extremely difficult to meet the day to-day requirements. It is further stated that because of continuous absence from the place of business, huge loss has already been resulted.

(3.) Pointing out the facts and circumstances, the petitioner approached the third respondent/Dy. Commissioner by filing Ext. P5 representation for modifying the conditions in Ext. P3 and to return the Passport. As this did not yield any positive result, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.32496 of 2014, challenging the authority of the concerned respondent to detain Passport. A contention was raised form the part of the respondents to the effect that they were entitled to do so, by virtue of the mandate under S. 110(3) of the Customs Act. As per the said provision, a proper officer may seize any document or things, which in his opinion will be useful for or relevant to any proceedings under the Act. After hearing both the sides, the said Writ Petition was disposed of as per Ext. P6 judgment, directing the Customs Authorities to state the reasons for retaining the Passport in terms of S. 110(3) of the Customs Act and if it does not require for any proceedings under the Customs Act, to have it returned to the petitioner forthwith, making it clear that decision shall be taken within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the said judgment.