Case Details: Union of India vs. Asia Pacific Shipping Co Ltd. (2026) 38 Centax 194 (S.C.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Pankaj Mithal & Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.
- Ms Nisha Bagchi, Sr. Adv. S/Shri N. Venkataraman, A.S.G. (N.P.), Ms Neelakshi Bhadauria, P.V. Yogeswaran, Rajan Kr. Chourasia, Advs. & Gurmeet Singh Makker, for the Petitioner.
- S/Shri Pradeep Rai, Sr. Adv., Ms Farhat Naim, Ms Modoyia Kayina, Paras Chauhan, Vinay Kumar Rai, Mrs Rajshree Rai, Shreyansh Singh, Parimal Rai, Harish Gupta, Virendra Singh, Vaibhav Agarwal, Ranjeet Kumar, Yeshwant, Ms Vidiya R.P., Ms Eliza Gupta, Navneet Singh, Nirmal Singh, Advs. & M/s. R & R Law Associates, AOR, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, a foreign shipping company, had its vessel seized under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, following the discovery of suspicious materials on board. The petitioner contended that prolonged docking of the vessel caused substantial financial loss, including heavy docking charges and risk of deterioration, and sought interim release. The High Court, applying Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, directed the release of the vessel, waiving the condition of furnishing a bank guarantee and reducing the indemnity bond from Rs. 100 crore to Rs. 75 crore with two solvent sureties of equivalent amount. The petitioner submitted that it was prepared to furnish an indemnity bond of Rs. 110 crore, covering the Rs. 10 crore bank guarantee. The matter was accordingly placed before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Held
The Supreme Court held that the interim release of the vessel was justified, given the potential heavy losses and deterioration caused by prolonged docking. The Court noted that while there was no illegality in granting release subject to conditions, there was no justification for reducing the indemnity bond to Rs.75 crore. The Court directed that the vessel be released forthwith by the Customs Department on furnishing an indemnity bond of Rs. 110 crore, two solvent sureties of Rs. 75 crore as directed by the High Court, and two Indian sureties of Rs. 10 crore each in lieu of the bank guarantee. The petition was disposed of partly in favour of the department.
