Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010231412025 2025:GAU-AS:15096 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6310/2025 NASIM UDDIN S/O LATE AFTER UDDIN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NAZATPUR, P.O- KATIGORAH, DISTRICT- SRIBHUMI, ASSAM, PIN- 788805 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI- 1 2:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER CUM DIRECTOR GENERAL AND THE CHAIRMAN OF THE CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS (CBIC) 2ND AND 3RD FLOOR BHAI VEER SINGH SAHITYA SADAN BHAI VEER SINGH MARG NEW DELHI- 1 3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) DIVISION KARIMGANJ P.O- KARIMGANJ DISTRICT SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN- 788710 4:THE SUPERINTENDENT (ADJUDICATION) CUSTOM DIVISION KARIMGANJ P.O- KARIMGANJ DISTRICT- SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN- 788710 Page No.# 2/5 5:THE SUPERINTENDENT ANTI SMUGGLING UNIT CUSTOM DIVISION KARIMGANJ P.O- KARIMGANJ DISTRICT- SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN- 788710 6:THE CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY LTD CHOLA CREST CHENNAI- 60003 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH Advocate for the petitioner (s) : Mr. J. A. Sikdar, Advocate Advocate for the respondent (s) : Mr. S. C. Keyal, SC, Customs Date on which judgment is reserved : NA Date of pronouncement of judgment : 10.11.2025 Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative part of the judgment? : NA Whether the full judgment has been Pronounced? : Yes JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. J. A. Sikdar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. S. C. Keyal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 5. 2. Taking into account the order which this Court proposes to pass, this Court dispenses with the service of notice upon the Page No.# 3/5 respondent No.6. 3. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the action on the part of the Respondent Authorities, more particularly the respondent No.4 in directing the provisional release of the vehicle of the petitioner subject to payment of 30% of the full seizure value of the vehicle, i.e. Rs.21,42,001/- and Rs.9,56,100/-. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the sole bread earner in the family and except the vehicle, the petitioner has no other source of income, and as such, the petitioner is not in a position to make payment of such a huge amount for the provisional release of the vehicle. 5. Per contra, Mr. S. C. Keyal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 5 submitted that the petitioner could not have approached this Court directly taking into account that the petitioner has alternative and efficacious remedy in terms with section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 to challenge such order before the Commissioner, (Appeals). The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 also submitted that the petitioner had not approached the said Authority, instead, the petitioner had only approached the Assistant Commissioner, Customs Division, Karimganj who has no authority to decide on Page No.# 4/5 an order passed by the respondent No.4. 6. Mr. J. A. Sikdar, the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however, submitted that taking into account the mandate of Section 128(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 which stipulates that the Appeal has to be filed within a period of 60 days, the remedy by way of an Appeal would not be an alternative and efficacious remedy in as much as the said Appeal, as on date, is barred by limitation. 7. This Court has heard the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents and the question duly arises as to whether the petitioner would be in a position to make payment of the said amount as sought for vide the impugned order dated 29.08.2024 for the provisional release of the vehicle in question. 8. Taking into account that there is an alternative remedy available under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962, and such aspects can be very well agitated before the said Authority, it is the opinion of this Court that the petitioner ought to be relegated to avail such remedy instead of pursuing the present proceedings. 9. This Court cannot also turn a blind eye to the fact that, as on date, the petitioner would not be in a position to file the Page No.# 5/5 Appeal, as the Appeal appears to be heavily barred by limitation. However, taking into account that the respondents have taken the plea that the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy and this Court is also of the opinion that the petitioner should be relegated to avail such remedy, this Court directs the Commissioner (Appeals) who is the Appellate Authority in terms with Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 to decide the Appeal on merits, if such Appeal is filed within a period of 30 days from the date of the present order. 10. With the above, the instant writ petition stands closed. 11. It is made clear that the closure of the instant proceedings shall not prejudice the petitioner to file such Appeal, if so advised. JUDGE Comparing Assistant