Kerala HC Directs Customs to Consider Provisional Release of Dulquer Salmaan’s Car

The Kerala High Court has directed the Customs Department to take a decision within one week on actor Dulquer Salmaan’s plea seeking provisional release of his Land Rover Defender, which was seized earlier this year by Customs authorities. The Court observed that the department cannot continue to withhold the vehicle without offering clear justification for its seizure.

The single-judge bench of Justice Ziyad Rahman AA made the observation while hearing a petition filed by Salmaan, who approached the High Court after his request for release of the car was turned down by the Customs Department. The Court questioned the department’s reliance on a mere “reasonable belief” for the seizure, directing officials to disclose the basis on which the action was taken.

According to the actor’s petition, the car was imported in compliance with all applicable laws, duties, and registration requirements. The vehicle, manufactured in 2004, was purchased and used in India after all necessary customs formalities were completed. However, officials of the Customs (Preventive) Commissionerate, Kochi, allegedly seized the vehicle on suspicion of irregularities related to its import.

Salmaan had submitted documents including the bill of entry, purchase invoice, registration certificates, and proof of duty payment to support his claim that the vehicle was lawfully acquired. Despite this, his representation dated September 25 seeking the vehicle’s release was rejected, prompting him to approach the High Court.

During the hearing, the counsel representing the Customs Department informed the bench that the seizure was made based on “reasonable belief” of possible violations. Justice Rahman, however, questioned the vagueness of the claim and asked the department to explain the factual basis of such belief. The Court observed that “reasonable belief” cannot be an undefined or blanket ground for seizure and that the authorities must specify reasons that justify retaining possession of the property.

The Court also drew attention to the nature of the property seized. It observed that while seizure of perishable or precious commodities like gold may be justified to prevent loss or misuse, the continued detention of a vehicle that has already been registered and in use for nearly two decades requires a clear explanation. The bench noted that physical custody of the vehicle should not be necessary for the ongoing investigation if all relevant documentation is available to the department.

In its interim order, the High Court clarified that Salmaan is free to file an application under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, which provides for provisional release of seized goods. If such an application is filed before the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Kochi, the authority must consider it promptly and issue a reasoned order after hearing the applicant or his representative. The Court set a one-week timeline from the date of filing the application for the authority to take a final decision.

Justice Rahman further directed that if the Customs Department decides to reject the application, the order must be a “speaking order”; meaning it must detail the facts, reasoning, and documents considered before arriving at the decision. The Court stressed that any decision to continue withholding the vehicle should be backed by a clear explanation that meets the standards of fairness and transparency required under the law.

The order also underlined that the petitioner has provided all documents necessary to establish compliance with import and registration laws.

The Court stated that these materials should be carefully reviewed before determining whether the provisional release can be granted or not. The bench reiterated that the Customs Department’s authority to investigate remains unaffected by the provisional release of the vehicle.

Through this direction, the Kerala High Court has sought to ensure that procedural safeguards under the Customs Act are followed while balancing the interests of both the investigating agency and the property owner.

The bench made it clear that while the department retains the power to conduct inquiries and gather evidence, such powers must be exercised with due regard to principles of proportionality and procedural fairness.

The next steps in the case will depend on the Customs Department’s response to Salmaan’s forthcoming application under Section 110A.

The Court has refrained from making any observation on the merits of the investigation but has emphasized that administrative discretion under the Act must always be exercised with reasoned justification.

The matter has been listed for further proceedings following the Customs authority’s decision on the provisional release plea.

Case Title: Dulquer Salmaan v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Kochi

Bench: Justice Ziyad Rahman AA

Date of Order: October 7, 2025