IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 17TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 2212 of 2008(L) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ ABDUL KAREEM POKU ,PALATHINKAL HOUSE AJANUR,KANHANGAD,KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JAYACHANDRAN SRI.M.S.SAJEEV KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CUSTOMS HOUSE,COCHIN 682 009. 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF CUSTOMS CUSTOMS OFFICE ,KANHANGAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 2212 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: February 6, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner complains that at the instance of the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent is harassing him. It is stated by the petitioner that he was a non-resident Indian and that, on his return to the country, he had imported a vehicle from abroad. It is stated that adjudication relating to the said vehicle is pending and in the meanwhile the 2nd respondent is harassing him. It is also stated that recently the 2nd respondent went to the house of the petitioner and even threatened to arrest him. It is on these allegations the writ petition has been filed praying for directing the 2nd respondent not to harass the petitioner. 2. On instructions the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that in relation to the vehicle imported by the petitioner, investigation is going on. According to the respondents they are suspecting that the petitioner has tampered with the engine number and the year of manufacture of the vehicle. It is also stated WP(C) 2212/08 Page numbers that despite a show cause notice, the petitioner had not appeared and it is on account of this that, on the directions of the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent attempted to serve summons on the petitioner. According to the respondents, the 2nd respondent's attempt to serve summons on the petitioner is what is described as harassment by the petitioner. It is also submitted by the respondent that if the petitioner appears before the 1st respondent and co-operate with the adjudication, they will not require even the presence of the petitioner except for adjudication purposes. When this offer was made by the counsel for the respondents, the petitioner offers to make himself available before the 1st respondent any day that they notify for that purpose. Thereupon the standing counsel for the respondents suggests that the petitioner may appear before the 1st respondent on 13.2.2008 and this has been accepted by the petitioner also. 3. In view of the aforesaid submissions that are made by both sides, I dispose of the writ petition recording the submission of the petitioner that he will present himself before the 1st respondent on 13.2.2008 at 11.30 a.m. and co-operate with the 1st respondent WP(C) 2212/08 Page numbers for an early completion of the adjudication proceedings in relation to the vehicle imported by him. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-