2011 (5) TMI 389 - HC - Customs

Payment of compensation by the customs department - sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as costs of the seized goods and compensation for mental torture caused to writ petitioner/respondent. - The grounds canvassed by the appellants counsel that the loss and damage to the goods was not caused due to the fault of the officers of the Department, but due to non-listing of the application filed by the Department, for clarification of the order passed in 1999, do not at all appeal - However, fact remains that due to mishandling of the entire situation and inaction on the part of the appellants, the goods got damaged and consequently, the respondent had to sustain loss and injury, for which he has been rightly held to be entitled to adequate compensation - Petitioner/respondent was entitled to all the seized articles, in question - However, admittedly, the seized goods, in question, got damaged and destroyed, consequently, it could not be returned to the petitioner/respondent - Therefore, the award of compensation made by the learned single Judge in the impugned order is reasonable and justified.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to judgment and order for payment of costs and compensation for seized goods and mental torture.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged a judgment ordering payment of Rs. 1,50,000 as costs for seized goods and compensation for mental torture. The respondent sent goods to his house but BSF seized them suspecting export to Bangladesh. Despite court orders and a security bond, the goods were not released, causing damage. The Commissioner of Customs later ordered release, but the appellant refused, leading to total damage. The respondent filed a writ petition claiming compensation for the damaged goods and mental torture. The appellant argued delay due to a clarification application. The Single Judge found the appellant's reasons unconvincing and awarded Rs. 1,50,000 compensation.

The appellant contended that the seizure was lawful, absolving them of responsibility for damage. However, the court found the seizure illegal as per the Commissioner's order. The appellant's inaction caused the goods' damage, leading to the respondent's loss. The court cited Nagendra Rao v. State of A.P., emphasizing compensation for loss due to negligence, even if goods are to be returned. It also referred to State of Bombay v. Menon Mahomed Haji Hasam, stating an obligation to preserve seized property until final decisions.

The court, citing Century Spinning & Manufacturing Co. Ltd., highlighted the High Court's discretion to provide relief efficiently. It concluded that the respondent was entitled to the seized goods, but their damage justified the compensation awarded by the Single Judge. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the compensation awarded.