Sec 115 Customs Act- Mere Apprehension Of Future Involvement In Smuggling Is Insufficient For Confiscation Of Vehicle: Kerela HC

While clarifying that section 115(2) of the Customs Act which allows confiscation of vehicles, does not cover future apprehended use, the Kerala High Court held that seizing a vehicle for smuggling based on future apprehension violates Article 14 of the Constitution and therefore directed for release of the seized vehicle to the petitioner, declaring the confiscation as illegal.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that “Undoubtedly, section 115(1) has no application in the present case. Section 115(2) of the Act renders a vehicle liable for confiscation if it was used as a means of transport in the smuggling of goods or in the carriage of any smuggled goods”.

The Bench further observed that in the absence of any definition provided by the special statute, the ordinary meaning must be ascribed to the words used in the statute, and therefore the words ‘used as a means of transport’ in section 115(2) of the Act can only be interpreted as ‘already used as a means of transport’ or as ‘presently being used as a means of transport’.

The possibility for future use of the vehicle as a means of transport of smuggled goods cannot be brought within the purview of the power of confiscation, added the Bench.

Advocate Babu S. Nair appeared for the Petitioner whereas Advocate A.K. Preetha appeared for the Respondent.

The brief facts of the case were that the petitioner, who owns a motor car registered with the State of Kerela, resides in Dubai and is engaged in business there. While the Petitioner was away from home, he entrusted the vehicle to a family friend. Upon his return, the Petitioner was informed that Customs authorities had seized his car at Cochin International Airport. After conducting further inquiries, it came to light that two individuals had misused the car to facilitate the receipt of 931.73 grams of smuggled gold from a passenger. Acting promptly, the Petitioner filed an application seeking the release of his vehicle. Subsequently, it became evident that the seizure was illegal, as even the Customs authorities acknowledged that the car was not involved in smuggling activities or used as a means of transport. Hence, to reclaim his lawfully owned vehicle and establish the illegality of the seizure, the Petitioner approached the High Court challenging the confiscation.

After considering the submission, the Bench noted that under Section 106 of the Customs Act, 1962, the Department is authorized to stop and search vehicles if there are reasonable grounds to suspect smuggling or transportation of smuggled goods.

Further, the Bench observed that the power to search is distinct from the power to seize therefore the provision does not confer the right to seize a vehicle solely based on suspicion.

While mentioning that for a lawful seizure, concrete evidence of the vehicle's involvement in smuggling or carrying illicit goods must be present, as stipulated by the Act, the High Court concluded that mere suspicion of wrongdoing does not justify a vehicle's seizure.

Accordingly, the High Court declared the seizure of the Petitioner's vehicle illegal and directed the Respondent to release it immediately as the Petitioner has no connection to the smuggling activity, and the seizure lacked proper legal basis.

Cause Title: Safir v. The Commissioner of Customs

Click here to read/download the Judgment