“What Evidence You Have? No Information Even In Sealed Cover”: Kerala High Court Questions Customs' Seizure Of Dulquer Salmaan's Car

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (October 7) intensely questioned the Customs Department over their seizure of actor Dulquer Salmaan's vintage Land Rover. The Court questioned the very basis of the seizure and remarked that the authorities appeared to have acted without any concrete evidence.Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. was hearing Dulquer Salmaan's petition challenging the seizure of his Land Rover Defender, taken into custody under “Operation Numkhor,” and seeking its interim release. According to Customs, the vehicle was illegally imported from BhutanThe Court closely grilled the Customs officials, repeatedly asking what evidence they had to support their “reason to believe” that the vehicle was smuggled.The Judge asked pointedly : “What are the documents? What evidence you have in respect of this? With respect to maintainability, I am not ready to accept your contention. The question is entertainability, not maintainability. If it is seized without following any procedure, nothing would preclude this Court from interfering. What is the "reason to believe"?”When the Customs counsel said the seizure was based on an officer's “reasonable belief,” the Court responded sharply: “Is it not necessary that even without substantiating anything, furnishing anything, you can simply reproduce the section? At least what the illegality is should be mentioned."Noting the petitioner's argument that he bought the vehicle from another owner who had registration in India and had been using it for many years, the Judge asked : "This happened years ago... how many government officers did these registration documents pass through? All of a sudden, you are taking away property from a person just saying that you have a reasonable doubt.”The Bench also noted that the Customs had failed to place any concrete material before the Court, not even in a sealed cover.“Even in sealed cover, you have not provided any specific information... The physical presence of the vehicle in your custody, in your premises, is it necessary? Because this investigation is into the documents based on which the vehicle was brought in,” Justice Rahman asked.When the Customs counsel admitted that the verification of documents was still underway, the Court remarked:“That means as of now, you don't have any grounds.”The Court further observed that while authorities were free to carry out an investigation, depriving a person of property purchased lawfully could not be justified in the absence of any material.“We are on the question of seizure. Nobody would prevent you from carrying out any inspection or investigation, but here you are denying a person of his property, purchased by spending his money,” the Judge said.The Court also orally took exception to the Customs describing the petitioner as an "accused."The Court orally said, “When you are naming certain persons…That is not proper. You are painting them, the person named.”Senior Advocate A. Kumar, appearing for Dulquer Salmaan, argued that the actor was only a subsequent purchaser and not the importer, and that all statutory clearances had been obtained when the vehicle was first registered in Delhi. In response to the plea, the respondent Customs authorities had filed a detailed statement before the Court. The respondents contended that the writ petition is not maintainable and that the petitioner may approach the Adjudicating Authority under Section 110A of the Customs Act for the provisional release of the vehicle.In the statement, it was further stated: “The subject vehicle has been seized on the basis of the reasoned belief, gathered from the intelligence inputs that the vehicle is a smuggled good. On the basis of the reasonable belief of the Proper Officer, the vehicle has been seized.”Today, when the case came for consideration, the senior counsel appearing for the actor went on to address the objections made in the statement. It was contended that since there is no statutory bar pointed out against the writ petition, the same is maintainable. The counsel argued that the actor was a purchaser of the vehicle and the primary liability is on the importer. It was further urged that the actor's liability is limited to the payment of a redemption for securing the good. Then, the counsel proceeded to make arguments against the manner in which the seizure was done and seizure memo issued.In the seizure memo, the reason for seizure was provided as “On the reasonable belief that the goods are smuggled into India by way of smuggling and without payment of customs duty in violation of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and thus, they appear to be liable for confiscation under the said Act.”The counsel further submitted that the vehicle was shipped by International Committee of the Red Cross and thereafter registered in Delhi. The vehicle had received clearance from the Home Ministry, the Transport Department and Clearance and NOC from the Embassy at the time of registration. Subsequently, after a few...

“What Evidence You Have? No Information Even In Sealed Cover”: Kerala High Court Questions Customs' Seizure Of Dulquer Salmaan's Car

K. Salma Jennath

The Court noted that the actor was a subsequent purchaser of a vehicle registered in India and questioned the need for Customs seizure.

Tags