Introduction:

The Kerala High Court, in a recent order delivered by Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. on October 7, 2025, addressed the petition filed by renowned actor Dulquer Salmaan, who sought the release of his luxury vehicle, a Land Rover Defender, seized by Customs authorities as part of the ongoing investigation known as Operation Numkhor. The case, registered as Dulquer Salmaan v. Commissioner and Others (WP(C) No. 35869 of 2025), involved the seizure of the vehicle on allegations related to irregularities in its importation and subsequent registration. The actor contended that he had purchased the vehicle in good faith, with all necessary documentation and payments made lawfully through bank transactions. The Court, however, refrained from interfering directly with the seizure, instead directing the actor to approach the competent adjudicating authority under the Customs Act by filing an application for provisional release under Section 110A. The Court emphasized that the said authority must pass a reasoned or “speaking” order in the event that the request for release is denied.

Arguments:

In his petition, Dulquer Salmaan asserted that he was the registered owner and lawful possessor of the Land Rover Defender, which he had acquired approximately five years ago from Aarpee Promoters Pvt. Ltd. He maintained that the transaction was carried out transparently, with all payments made via official banking channels, and that the vehicle had been regularly used and maintained without any violations for years. According to the documents filed before the Court, the original importer of the vehicle was the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), New Delhi, as reflected in the bill of entry, invoice, and accompanying customs documents from Land Rover and Ford. The actor further stated that he was provided with all relevant legal documents at the time of purchase, including customs clearances, invoices, declarations, and delivery notes, and that he had no knowledge of any prior irregularity in the import process. Counsel for the petitioner, Senior Advocate A. Kumar, along with Advocates G. Mini, P. Fazil, Saju Thaliath, V. V. Jayasree, Jithin Paul Varghese, C. Prabhitha, Fadil Fazil, Aswathy Jayachandran, and Akshaya Thomas, argued that the seizure of the vehicle was arbitrary and unjustified, particularly when the actor had acted as a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of any alleged infraction.

The petitioner’s counsel emphasized that the seizure had caused substantial hardship, as the vehicle was not only lawfully registered with the relevant regional transport authorities but had also been used without incident for nearly two decades by different owners, as per official records. It was further argued that the Customs Department had not issued any prior show-cause notice or provided an opportunity for the petitioner to explain his position before resorting to seizure, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Counsel contended that under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, the person from whom goods are seized is entitled to apply for provisional release pending adjudication, subject to furnishing appropriate security or bond as determined by the adjudicating authority. The petitioner therefore requested that the Court direct the Customs Department to grant interim custody of the vehicle, as its continued detention would serve no purpose given the actor’s willingness to comply with all legal formalities and provide any necessary guarantees.

On the other hand, the respondents, represented by the standing counsel for Customs, argued that the investigation was still at a preliminary stage and that the High Court should refrain from issuing any directions that might prejudice the ongoing inquiry. They maintained that the seizure was carried out as part of Operation Numkhor, a coordinated initiative aimed at uncovering large-scale irregularities in the importation and transfer of high-end luxury vehicles that may have entered India under concessional duty exemptions or other unauthorized channels. The Customs authorities alleged that the vehicle in question had originally been imported under special privileges applicable to diplomatic or humanitarian organizations and that subsequent private sale transactions may have circumvented the necessary clearance procedures. The respondents asserted that the seizure was well within the powers conferred under Section 110 of the Customs Act, which permits the authorities to detain goods suspected of having been imported in contravention of customs law. They also submitted that the petitioner’s ownership claim, though supported by documentation, did not automatically absolve him from inquiry under the Customs framework, as the ultimate determination of lawful title would depend on the outcome of the investigation.

Judgement:

After hearing the parties and reviewing the submissions, Justice Ziyad Rahman observed that the Court should exercise restraint in matters involving active investigations, especially when statutory remedies were available under the Customs Act. The Court noted that Section 110A of the Act specifically provides for the provisional release of seized goods, including vehicles, on furnishing security or bond as prescribed by the adjudicating authority. The judge stated that the petitioner’s grievance regarding interim custody of the vehicle could be addressed through this statutory mechanism rather than through direct judicial intervention. The order emphasized that the actor must first approach the competent adjudicatory authority, namely, the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Kochi, with an application under Section 110A. The Court further directed that, upon submission of such an application, the authority must consider it expeditiously and pass an appropriate order within one week, ensuring that the petitioner or his legal representative is given an opportunity of being heard.

Significantly, the Court clarified that provisional release under Section 110A is a legal right available to the person whose property has been seized, provided that statutory conditions are met. The Bench observed that if the adjudicating authority chooses to reject the request for provisional release, such refusal must be justified through a speaking order that specifically addresses the documents, evidence, and arguments presented by the petitioner. Justice Rahman also instructed the authority to take into account the fact that the vehicle had been registered by various transport authorities over the past twenty years and had been in continuous lawful use, indicating long-standing administrative recognition of its ownership and authenticity. The Court’s order thus ensured that while the Customs Department could continue its investigation without interference, the petitioner’s statutory rights under the Customs Act were also safeguarded.

The judgment reflects a balanced approach by the Kerala High Court, seeking to uphold both the integrity of the ongoing customs investigation and the individual rights of the petitioner. Justice Rahman highlighted that the High Court should not intervene in the merits of the case at such an early stage, particularly when the statutory process provides an adequate remedy. The Court’s insistence on a “reasoned order” serves to promote transparency and accountability in administrative decision-making, ensuring that the exercise of discretionary powers by enforcement agencies remains subject to judicial scrutiny if challenged subsequently. This approach aligns with established judicial precedents emphasizing that statutory mechanisms must be exhausted before invoking constitutional remedies.

The order also underscores the importance of procedural fairness in the exercise of customs powers. By directing the authorities to provide an opportunity for hearing and to deliver a speaking order in case of refusal, the Court reaffirmed the principles of natural justice embedded within administrative law. The ruling implicitly recognizes that individuals who purchase goods in good faith should not be subjected to undue hardship or punitive action without conclusive findings of wrongdoing. At the same time, the judgment reflects the Court’s caution against prematurely interfering in investigative processes that might have broader implications for law enforcement and national revenue protection.

The case also highlights the complexities surrounding the importation and resale of vehicles initially brought into India under concessional or diplomatic exemptions. Operation Numkhor, under which the actor’s vehicle was seized, reportedly targets such irregularities, aiming to trace instances where imported vehicles have entered private ownership without proper customs clearance or duty payment. In this broader context, the Court’s direction allows the investigative process to proceed unhindered while ensuring that legitimate purchasers are not deprived of procedural rights.

In conclusion, the Kerala High Court’s order provides a clear procedural pathway for Dulquer Salmaan to seek provisional custody of his seized Land Rover Defender. By directing him to file an application under Section 110A and instructing the adjudicating authority to decide within one week through a reasoned order, the Court balanced the demands of justice, legality, and administrative prudence. The decision reinforces the judiciary’s role as a protector of due process while respecting the autonomy of investigative agencies. It also serves as a precedent for similar cases involving seizure of property where ownership and import legality are under question, demonstrating that courts can protect individual rights without obstructing lawful investigation.