2012 (9) TMI 711 - AT - Customs

Stay application - interest seizure of sale proceeds of smuggled goods - Tribunal ordered release of the currency holding that the same is not liable for confiscation under Section 121 of the Customs Act - delay in payment of refund Held that - There is no provision in the Customs Act for payment of interest on return of the seized currency or return of the sale proceeds of any seized goods which are ordered to be released - there is absolutely no justification for more than 10 year s delay in returning the seized currency and the conduct of the officers amounts to defying the Tribunal s order, the Commissioner (Appeals) s order sanctioning the interest on the seized currency for the delay in its return is not correct - It is only the High Court, which in exercise of their writ jurisdiction can order the payment of interest by the Department for period of delay in return of the currency - order ordering payment of interest is stayed and the Revenue s stay application is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Seizure of currency believed to be sale proceeds of smuggled goods.
2. Confiscation order by Commissioner of Customs.
3. Tribunal's order for release of currency.
4. Dispute over entitlement to interest on the seized currency.
5. Commissioner (Appeals) order on interest payment.
6. Appeal before Tribunal for interest rate determination.
7. Department's challenge against interest payment order.

Analysis:

1. The case involved the seizure of Indian currency from a residence believed to be proceeds of smuggled goods. The Commissioner of Customs ordered absolute confiscation of the currency, which was upheld on appeal. However, the Tribunal later ordered the release of the currency, stating it was not liable for confiscation under the Customs Act.

2. Despite the Tribunal's order, the currency was not released promptly. The issue escalated when the respondent sought interest on the delayed return of the currency. The Commissioner (Appeals) initially held that interest was not payable but later ordered payment at rates notified by the Government.

3. The Department challenged the interest payment order, arguing that no provision in the Customs Act allowed for interest on returned seized goods. The respondent contended that delay in returning seized goods entitled them to interest, citing relevant judgments. The Tribunal had to decide on the validity of the interest payment.

4. After considering both sides, the Tribunal noted that Section 27A of the Customs Act only provided for interest on delayed duty refunds, not on returned seized goods. While acknowledging the unreasonable delay in returning the currency, the Tribunal emphasized its limited authority under the Acts. It stated that only the High Court could order interest payment for such delays, not the Tribunal.

5. Consequently, the Tribunal stayed the order for interest payment, allowing the Department's appeal. The matter was scheduled for final disposal at a later date. The Tribunal clarified that despite the delay and the officers' conduct, interest on seized currency could only be mandated by the High Court, not by the Tribunal.

By providing a detailed analysis of each issue involved in the judgment, the summary offers a comprehensive understanding of the legal proceedings and the Tribunal's decision regarding the disputed interest payment on the seized currency.