1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1064 OF 2009 Japaul Oil and Maritime Services PLC and Anr .. Petitioners Versus Union of India and Ors. .. Respondents Mr. V.R. Dhond with Mr. A.S. Kamat i/by M/s. A. Mehta Laljee & Co. for Petitioners. Mr. P.S. Jetly for Respondents. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATED : 26 JUNE, 2009 P.C. Rule. Heard forthwith. The Petitioner had approached this court contending that the respondents were not permitting sailing of Accommodation Barge “mv Morayo” flying the flag of Sierra Leone. It is their contention that the barge was imported after complying with all the customs formalities. With the permission of the concerned authorities it was changed from coastal run to foreign run. The barge however, continued to remain in Indian waters during this period. The respondents have filed their reply through Mr. S.R. Vichare, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The principle contention on behalf of the respondent is that the accommodation barge Morayo was imported but did not file IGM based on bill of lading and bill of entry. In these circumstances the barge is 2 liable for confiscation under section 111 (f) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the importer M/s. Sarku Engineering Respondent No. 3 is liable for penalty under section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. It is also admitted by the department that it does not have any case against the Petitioner but against Respondent No. 3 and the impugned goods namely the barge. It may be mentioned herein that the Petitioner herein had purchased the vessel from Global Business Universal Limited and Respondent No. 3 is the charterer of the vessel. The Petitioners have approached this court contending that they have to sail by 29.6.2009. Their vessel had been detained for very long period for no fault of theirs. It is also submitted that they should be entitled to detention certificate from the Customs on that count. We at this stage cannot consider this later relief. Considering the controversy in our opinion, at the highest subject to adjudication, respondents, if in law they are entitled to seize the barge and such seizure leads to confiscation and as the import of barge is not prohibited, considering section 125 of the Customs Act, they would be entitled to release of the barge on such terms and conditions. On behalf of the Petitioners it is also pointed out that there is a notification No. 21 of 2000 dated 1.3.2002 under the Customs Act whereby subject to conditions specified therein the goods are exempted from payment of duty. In the instant case, the petitioners are so entitled and no duty is leviable. The respondents have set out that in case the imported goods are released 3 unconditionally, the department may loose revenue of Rs.3.55 crores. Considering the above, in our opinion, the ends of justice will be met without going into the merits of the matter if the vessel is treated as seized as on today subject to whatever formal steps the respondents may take, the said barge is released on the following terms and conditions : (1) The Petitioners to furnish bank guarantee in the sum of Rs. 55 lacs. In favour of Respondent No. 2 and to keep it alive till the completion of the adjudication proceedings. (2) The Petitioner also to furnish usual bond. (3) On furnishing bank guarantee and bond, the respondent to forthwith allow the vessel to sail subject to Petitioners having other documentations from the concerned authorities. (4) The respondent to release the documents whereby the vessel was converted from coastal run to foreign run after furnishing the guarantee and the bond. The document be released to the Petitioner. Rule made absolute accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. (J.H. BHATIA,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)