The URA chief accountable for customs, Abel Kagumire kept in touch with Kyagulanyi illuminating him regarding the choice to review the vehicle after a request had been set up into conditions under which it was brought into the country.
URA said the vehicle was proclaimed to customs as a conventional vehicle and not an armored one, and thus, less taxes were paid for it and subsequently there is need for another assessment.
Notwithstanding, Kyagulanyi requested of court to stop the approaching seizing by the assessment body.
In a decision followed through on Tuesday, Justice Emmanuel Baguma said the reason for giving a brief directive very much like Kyagulanyi did is to save the state of affairs until the inquiry to be researched in the fundamental suit is at last discarded.
He anyway noticed that this isn’t the situation with Kyagulanyi’s case.
“In the instant application, the applicant’s motor vehicle was assessed, cleared and subsequently registered by URA on 12th January 2021. From this information, it is not in dispute that the purpose of recalling the motor vehicle is strictly for re-verification/re-examination. At this stage, the law does not require court to delve into the merits of the main suit. All that is required to be proved is that there is a serious issue to be tried by court and that, that issue is neither frivolous nor vexatious,” the judge said in his ruling.
In his application, Kyagulanyi said the shielded vehicle being referred to was in URA’s ownership where it was inspected, surveyed and burdened as needed before it was delivered to him as legally necessary.
He contended that it beats his comprehension for URA to try to do another confirmation practice having been done as of now.
Accordingly, URA said the vehicle was pronounced to customs as a common vehicle and not a protected one, and in this manner, less duties were paid for it.
“Armored vehicles are restricted items under the Customs law and the law regulating the Uganda People’s Defence Forces and requires special permission to import or own and thus it would only be proper if the applicant (Kyagulanyi) cooperates with the respondent(URA) to clarify on and clear the matter as the law requires,” URA said.
Nonetheless, as indicated by Justice Baguma, for an order actually like one applied for by Kyagulanyi to be in truth, the candidate should show that they will endure unsalvageable misfortune or injury on the off chance that it isn’t conceded .
“Basing on the submissions by counsel for the applicant, the main worry or concern for sending back the alleged motor vehicle for re-verification or reexamination is that the said motor vehicle is the applicant’s main means of transport and his personal security. However, this honorable court was not satisfied with such submissions.”
“It is therefore my considered view that the applicant has not adduced evidence to show that the re-calling of the said motor vehicle for re-verification or reexamination will cause him irreparable injury which cannot be compensated by an award of damages. The application therefore fails and it is hereby dismissed.”
The decision implies that on the off chance that Kyagulanyi neglects to take the vehicle to URA without anyone else, URA will continue to seize it for re-investigation in the wake of being given green light by court.