V.K. Tours And Transport vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2002 Latest Caselaw 1589 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. With the consent of the parties the writ petition is taken up for disposal.

The petitioner a Transport Operator, had been granted five licenses for import of capital goods, namely, Luxury vehicles under the Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (hereinafter referred to as "EPCG"). Petitioner claims to have imported 13 vehicles under the Scheme, though the license permitted him to import 29. Petitioner is required under the EPCG Scheme to fulfilll export obligation equivalent to 5 times of CIF value of the goods imported on FOB basis or four times the cif value of the capital goods on net foreign exchange basis as per the license. The petitioner imported the luxury vehicles and cleared the same on payment of 5% Customs duty and executed Bank Guarantee for the remaining 95%. Petitioner claims that on account of the recession in tourist industry, earthquake in Gujarat and the prevailing war like situation, tourist industry was facing a slump and, therefore, petitioner leased the vehicles to few parties. It is the petitioner's case that he is not obliged to earn foreign exchange for the first two years and it is only thereafter the he is to earn the specified percentage of earning in foreign exchange. According to petitioner there is restraint on leasing vehicles in the first two years.

2. The officers of DRI are stated to have carried out a search and seizure and confiscated two vehicles. These were handed over to the petitioner on superdginama on the condition that petitioner would not be dealing with the vehicles or use them without prior permission of DRI. Petitioner's grievance was that the respondent had been harassing the petitioner's clients to whom the vehicles had been rented out. Petitioner, therefore, by this writ petition sought a change in the superdginama in favor of the petitioner as he was the owner. Petitioner also sought rectification in the superdginama terms so that the petitioner may sue the vehicles for business purposes. Expedition in the investigation was also sought.

3. Notice to show cause was issued on 28.8.2002, returnable on 7.10.2002. As an interim order, petitioner was permitted to ply the vehicles subject to the terms and conditions of the superdginama inasmuch as the said vehicles would not be transferred or parted with possession and the petitioner would retain control over the same and would be willing to produce the same as and when required by the parties.

4. The writ petition has been listed today on the petitioner's moving C.M. Nos. 9865 and 9866/2002. Petitioner sought by CMP No. 9865/2002 cancelation of the earlier superdginama and permission to execute fresh superdginama. By CMP No. 9866/2002, petitioner complained of the violation of the order dated 28.8.2002, by which the petitioner was permitted to ply the vehicles, subject to the conditions set out therein. Counsel submits that officials of respondent No.2 visited one of its clients M/s Anand Motors Pvt. Ltd. to seize the vehicle rented out to them. As the vehicle was no repair in the workshop, it could not be seized. Petitioner, therefore, seeks a direction that respondents will not seize the vehicles.

5. I have heard learned Senior counsel Mr. Gopal Subramanium on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Navin Chawla for the respondents.

6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, states that some of the lessees of the cars had executed the superdarinama. The lessees are willing to return the vehicles to the petitioner and the petitioner is accordingly, willing to execute the fresh superdarinama for the vehicles and furnish the same to the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to this course of action without prejudice to its rights and contentions and subject to the respondents' right to proceed against the petitioner for any breach or violation of the terms and conditions of EPCG.

7. Learned Senior counsel on instructions from Mr.C.S. Yadav, Advocate as also from Mr. Sanjay Bhandari, proprietor of the petitioner, states that the petitioner undertakes henceforth to use and ply the vehicles strictly in accordance with the EPCG scheme and repossess the same from the lessees. In view of the above statement and the order already passed by the Court on 28.8.2002, the vehicles be seized by the respondents and no obstruction shall be caused in case the same are plied by petitioner in accordance with the provisions of EPCG Scheme. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been abe to raise any tenable plea to oppose the above. Ordered accordingly.

8. The aforesaid would be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and to any disqualification which the petitioner may have entailed for the past breach, if any. In view of the foregoing, counsel for the parties agree that nothing survives in the writ petition. The writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed of.