2011 (1) TMI 378 - HC - Customs

Confiscated goods - There is no question of any duty on the goods which were sold by the respondent and the levy of Customs duty of Rs.3,94,487/- on the petitioner is unwarranted - It is respectfully submitted that the goods were sold as per the provisions of Section 110(1A) taking into consideration, the depreciating nature of its value, if it is prolonged to be kept in the godown - Thus, the intrinsic value of the cell phones was protected by disposing of the same u/s 110(1A) of the Customs Act, 1962 - If the cell phones were to be disposed now, it could fetch much lower value - The only option to the department is to refund the sale proceeds (i.e cum duty price) after deduction of duty, fine and penalty which is a statutory liabilities under the provision of Customs Act and the procedure laid down in the Act is legally carried over - Hence, the contention of the petitioner is legally untenable - If the petitioner is so aggrieved, he can always filed an appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) u/s 128 against the impugned order. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed - No costs.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of 4th respondent | Seeking direction for return of sum with interest

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the order of the 4th respondent dated 07.12.2005, seeking the return of a sum of Rs.3,94,487/- along with accrued interest. The petitioner was intercepted at Trichy Airport with a significant number of cellphones and accessories valued at Rs.13,28,000/-, leading to his arrest and detention under the Customs Act, 1962 and COFEPOSA Act. An adjudication proceeding was initiated against the petitioner under Section 124 of the Customs Act, resulting in the confiscation of goods and imposition of a penalty. The petitioner's appeal to the Commissioner of Customs, Trichy, was rejected, prompting a review application before the third respondent. The third respondent allowed the goods to be re-exported on payment of a redemption fine. The impugned letter dated 07.12.2005 informed the petitioner of his entitlement to redeem the sale proceeds of the confiscated mobile phones by paying customs duty, redemption fine, and penalty.

The petitioner contended that the sale of goods by the 4th respondent before exhausting legal remedies was illegal and the levy of customs duty was unwarranted. The 4th respondent argued that the goods were disposed of as perishable goods under Section 110(1A) of the Customs Act, with the sale proceeds refunded after deducting the redemption fine, penalty, and customs duty. The petitioner's claim of no duty on the sold goods was deemed legally untenable as per the provisions of the Customs Act. The court noted that the petitioner had not availed the remedy of appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) within 60 days as provided under Section 128 of the Customs Act.

In light of the respondents' stand and the available legal remedies, the court declined to entertain the writ petition, advising the petitioner to file an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) if aggrieved by the impugned order. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.