The Kerala High Court on Tuesday directed the Customs Department to decide on Malayalam actor Dulquer Salmaan's plea for the provisional release of his recently seized luxury car, a 2004 Land Rover Defender, within one week of such an application being filed by the actor [Dulquer Salman v. Commissioner].

Justice Ziyad Rahman AA also quizzed the Customs Department for seizing the car without providing adequate reasons for the same.

The Court passed the interim order on a plea filed by Salmaan challenging the seizure of his car.

"It is proper for the petitioner to approach the adjudicating authority, the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Kochi. In such circumstances, it is ordered that if the petitioner submits an application under Section 110A, the same shall be considered by the competent authority and appropriate orders shall be passed thereon by giving the petitioner or his legal representative an opportunity for being heard within a period of 1 week from the date of submission of the application," the interim order said.

The Court added that while considering Salmaan's application for the provisional release of his car, the fact that the vehicle was being plied on the basis of registration provided by various registering authorities for the past 20 years must be taken into account.

It also observed that the Customs authority must pass a reasoned order if it refuses to release the car.

"It is further clarified that, going by Section 110A, provisional release is a right of the petitioner under normal circumstances. In case his application is rejected, the same can only be done through a speaking order with reference to the documents produced and the contentions raised," the Court said.

Salmaan's car was seized in a Customs raid dubbed 'Operation Numkhor', which was part of a Statewide crackdown on luxury cars allegedly imported from Bhutan using forged documents.

The Court, however, today took note of Salmaan's argument that the Customs authorities had not handed over specific grounds to seize his vehicle and had only cited "reasonable apprehensions" without clarifying what the allegations against the actor were.

"The seizure was based on a reasonable belief of Customs officer," the Customs department's counsel told the Court today.

"So you can say 'reasonable belief' and seize anything? What is the purpose of mahzar then? Shouldn't they be given at least some reason? We are on the question of seizure. Nobody will stand in the way of your investigation. You are depriving a person of his property. You are merely saying you have some reason to believe," Justice Rahman replied.

The judge went on to remark,

"Even in sealed cover, you (Customs Department) have not provided any specific information."

"We have all the documents now and we are in the process of verification," the Customs' counsel assured.

"That means as of now, you don't have any grounds," Justice Rahman remarked.

"At the time of seizure, they had no reasons to provide," Salmaan's counsel added.

The Court proceeded to question the Customs' counsel on whether it was necessary for the authorities to retain possession of the vehicle.

"There is a difference between this case and one where someone who brought gold from the Gulf is apprehended at the airport and the gold is seized. This is a vehicle that has been plied for years ... is the physical presence of the vehicle in your custody necessary for investigation?" the judge asked.

Recently, Customs officials raided several locations across Kerala including the residences of actors Dulquer Salmaan and Prithviraj Sukumaran, seizing over 35 luxury vehicles, suspected to have been imported from Bhutan through fraudulent means.

Salmaan's 2004 Land Rover Defender was among those seized by the Customs.

Salmaan first filed a representation on September 25 before the Customs Authority, producing all relevant documents. But his request to release the vehicle was denied, prompting him to move the High Court.

In his petition, Salmaan stated that the vehicle was purchased legally, supported by all necessary documents, such as the bill of entry, invoice and registration papers.

He added that he had no reason to doubt any illegality in the import or sale of the vehicle, as he believed the vehicle to have valid ownership with proper registration.

He also submitted that his vehicle was seized by the Customs officials while completely ignoring the documents he provided to prove that all Customs duties were paid. He contended that the seizure of his vehicle was done in a hasty and arbitrary manner.

The actor added that keeping the vehicle in custody during the pendency of the investigation for a prolonged period would lead to irreparable damage to the vehicle, serving no public interest. Thus, he sought orders from the Court to release his vehicle.

Salmaan was represented by Senior counsel A Kumar and advocates G Mini, P Fazil, Saju Thaliath, VV Jayasree, Jithin Paul Varghese, C Prathibha, Fadil Fazil, Aswathy Jayachandran and Akshaya Thomas.

[Read live coverage]