SHAMSUDEEN CHIRAMMAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After residing abroad for some time, the petitioner returned to India and he imported a foreign car under the Transfer of Residence Rules. But the respondents initiated proceedings against the petitioner for confiscation of the car on the ground that for applying the Transfer of Residence Rules, possession of the car for one year period prior to import is mandatory. The adjudication resulted in confiscation of the vehicle and direction to the petitioner to pay fine in lieu of confiscation as also penalty totalling to more than Rs. 15 lakhs. The petitioner paid the fine and penalty and got the vehicle released after payment of demurrage charges also to the Cochin Port Trust. The petitioner was not served with a copy of the adjudication order in spite of demand. The petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P. (C) No. 32475/2006 apprehending seizure of the vehicle on other charges. In that writ petition, by Ext.P10 judgment, this Court directed issue of another copy of the adjudication order to the petitioner. But this Court refused to issue any direction with regard to the seizure of the vehicle. Subsequently, on 22-1-2007, by Ext.P12, the vehicle was seized on certain allegations. The petitioner originally filed this writ petition for release of the vehicle. The petitioner did not get any positive orders regarding interim release of the vehicle in the writ petition. While the writ petition was pending, the vehicle was released on 15-12-2007. Now the petitioner confines his relief for compensation amounting to Rs. 6,90,000/- for alleged illegal seizure of the vehicle and keeping it under illegal detention for a period of about 11 months.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating the reasons under which further investigation was undertaken and as to why the vehicle had to be seized and detained. The Senior Central Government Counsel for Excise and Customs would submit that the action of the respondents was clearly bona fide and for action in good faith, no action for damages would lie. He relies on Section 155 of the Customs Act, 1962, in support of his contentions.

(3.) I have considered the rival contentions in detail.