Customs Act | Gujarat High Court Endorses Expeditious Disposal Of Case Property, Orders Release Of Base Oil Worth ₹67 Lakhs Subject To Surety

The Gujarat High Court has recently endorsed the "expeditious and judicious" disposal of case property so as to ensure that the owner such seized property does not suffer unnecessary losses and the authorities are also saved from maintaining custody of such property.

Justice Ilesh Vora, while dealing with a case involving 1,03,120 kilograms muddamla seized base oil worth Rs. 67,02,800 observed,

"the expeditious and judicious disposal of the case property would ensure that the owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused. Court or police would not require to keep the article in safe custody, as it would save the cost of storage etc."

Reliance was placed on Sundarbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat , whereby the Supreme Court observed that case property like vehicles, machines etc. found lying in the police station for long time, would become junk and loosing their value and therefore, powers under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C should be exercised promptly, so that there may not be further chance of tempering with the articles etc. 

In this backdrop, the petition moved by SK Industries, involved in the business of importing and trading of base oil, was allowed by directing the release of seized goods subject to a solvent surety to the tune of 1.5 times of value of seized goods.

The Petitioner's goods were seized from the Kandla Port. It was averred that the goods reached Kandla Port in September 2021 after the completion of mandatory processes under the Customs Act. Accordingly, the e-challan for storage of goods was obtained but before the goods could reach the destination, the police detained the vehicles and the base oil on the ground that it was transported without the requite licenses.

The authorities registered an FIR for offences under Sections 285, 278 and 114 IPC and Section 3, 7 and 11 of the Essential Commodities Act. The Petitioners moved an application before the trial court and thereafter a revision petition both of which were rejected.