SYED NAJAM-UL-HASSAN KAZMI, J.--(l). Petitioners in this Constitutional petition, are aggrieved by the detention of vehicle by respondent No. 2. It is claimed that the vehicle is lawfully owned by petitioners Nos. 2 to 5 which has been kept under detention and the petitioners have been restrained from using the same.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that neither any show-cause notice has been issued nor any adjudication has been made against the petitioners and the matter is still at investigation stage and, therefore, the petitioner should be allowed to make use of the vehicle. The learned counsel, with the instructions from the petitioners, undertake that the petitioners will not dispose of the vehicle nor will create charge there against and will produce same before the Customs Authorities, if as a result of ultimate adjudication, the vehicle is required.
3. Mr. Abid Hussain, Assistant Collector, Customs Department, submits that the investigation is in progress and the same has not so far been completed. Further submits that the show-cause notice will be issued if the findings are recorded against the petitioner in consequence of the investigation and the matter is referred for adjudication by the Adjudicating Authority. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that under section 2(KK) of the Customs Act, the Customs Authority while issuing detention memo, can restrain the disposal or user of the vehicle. Learned counsel submits that if the petitioner undertake, to produce the vehicle as and when required by the respondents, then possibly, the user of vehicle will not be objected to.
4. After hearing of learned counsel for the parties and also the Assistant Collector of Customs Department it is observed' that at present, the investigation has not been completed, evidence has not been finally collected to conclude that the Custom duties have been evaded or that the custom laws have been violated nor any matter has been referred for adjudication. This being so, the restraint against user of the vehicle, may not be justified, more so when the petitioners undertake not to create any charge against the vehicle or to dispose it of and also to produce it as and when required by the Customs Authorities.
5. In view of the undertaking given before this Court the petitioners are permitted to use the vehicle, pending investigation and adjudication of case against them. However, they shall be bound by their undertaking to produce the vehicle as and when required by the Customs Authorities. The petitioners will not create any charge against the vehicle nor will dispose it of, during the pendency of the proceedings against them.
6. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of.