RAM BABU PRASAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Tiwary for the petitioner and Mrs. Archana Meenakshee for the Customs Department. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Customs Department. The petitioner has filed rejoinder thereto.

(2.) DISPUTE in the present case is the terms/conditions on which the vehicle, which admittedly belonged to the petitioner, could be released provisionally. It is the case of the petitioner that he owns a pick -up van bearing Registration No. BR -05G -7812. It was hired by someone for carrying goods. It was subsequently found that the vehicle of the petitioner was carrying betel nuts and other articles of foreign origin. The Customs Department seized the vehicle and the articles laden thereon. The petitioner immediately approached the respondent Customs Department for provisional release of the vehicle in terms of provisions contained in Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 which vests jurisdiction in the authority to pass appropriate order for provisional release of the articles/vehicle. The respondent Joint Commissioner considering the said claim of the petitioner by an order dated 18 -2 -2015 (Annexure -2/A) directed for provisional release of the vehicle (pick -up van) on certain condition(s). The conditions imposed can be appreciated on reading the relevant part of the order which is extracted hereinbelow:

(3.) PER contra, the Counsel for the Customs, through diverse statements made in the counter affidavit, has explained the situation under which those orders (Annexure -5 series) were passed. In her submission, the conditions for provisional release will depend on the facts of each case. No parallel can be drawn. It has also been contended that the petitioner has statutory remedy of filing appeal if the petitioner is dissatisfied by the present order.