2010 (5) TMI 448 - HC - Customs

Sale of seized goods - disposal of the goods without prior notice to the Petitioner - Petitioner must be able to show that if he had been given prior notice of the sale then the goods would have fetched a higher price Held that - declared invoice value of the imported goods of 17,000 US dollars, the sale of the goods to NCCF for a sum of Rs. 10,26,000/- more than two years later, cannot be said to have caused prejudice to the Petitioner - goods which were perishable in nature should be disposed of in accordance with the Circular dated20th February 2006 - petitioner fails and the order in adjudication was confirmed or modified and the differential duty and the penalty levied is found recoverable then the amount in the fixed deposit together with the accrued interest can be adjusted against such amount at the appropriate stage No illegality committed by Commissioner in Sale of seized goods

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to communication for provisional release of seized goods, harsh conditions for release, sale of seized goods without notice, alleged mala fide action, violation of circular on disposal of goods, legality of sale to NCCF, prejudice caused to petitioner, petition rendered infructuous, relief sought, direction for amount recovered from sale, lack of coordination by respondents.

Analysis:
The writ petition challenged a communication from the Commissioner of Customs regarding the provisional release of heavy-duty AA pencil batteries seized from the petitioner. The conditions for release included depositing anti-dumping duty, a bond, and a bank guarantee. The petitioner argued that the conditions were harsh and sought unconditional release or payment of a reduced duty amount. The court issued notice in May 2008, but the respondents filed a reply only in February 2009, leading to delays in the case.

During the proceedings, it was revealed that the seized goods had been sold without notice to the petitioner. The petitioner filed an application under the Right to Information Act, seeking details of the sale. The court was not satisfied with the response from the respondents regarding the sale and directed further explanations. The court found discrepancies in the handling of the case and ordered the Assistant Commissioner to provide additional information and appear in court.

The sale of the seized goods was defended by the respondents, stating that it was done following a circular and sold to a government-controlled organization. The court considered the petitioner's objections to the sale procedure and the alleged violation of the circular on disposal of goods. The court analyzed the potential prejudice caused to the petitioner and concluded that the sale did not significantly harm the petitioner's interests.

Subsequent developments in the case rendered the petition infructuous, and the court directed the amount recovered from the sale to be kept in a fixed deposit pending final orders. The court observed a lack of coordination among the respondents and emphasized the need for better communication within the department. The petition and pending applications were disposed of with no costs awarded.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues related to the provisional release of seized goods, the sale of goods without notice, alleged mala fide actions, compliance with circulars on disposal, and the coordination within the department. The court provided directions regarding the amount recovered from the sale and emphasized the importance of transparency and coordination in such matters for future cases.