2015 (8) TMI 1115 - HC - Customs

Refund of amount against gold which was disposed off after seizure - Payment of Sum equivalent to Goods disposed illegal import of gold - Tribunal directed release of gold of amount subject to payment of redemption fine, penalty and Customs Duty, said amount was deposited by Assesse Admittedly revenue had disposed goods, therefore vide impugned order was directed to pay sum equal to goods Held that - evident that when goods were imported there were two claimants, out of which, by Tribunal s order one party was directed to release goods upon payment of redemption fine, penalty and Customs Duty In said circumstances assesse was bound to succeed because that led to anomalous situation of inconsistent orders in same matter Admittedly Department choose to dispose of gold on 3-2-2006 In said circumstances, direction that revenue should pay price of gold was fair and reasonable Appellant/Revenue directed to pay sum with interest Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing an appeal challenging tribunal orders.
2. Confiscation and release of gold in a customs duty evasion case.
3. Rectification applications and orders by the Tribunal.
4. Compliance with tribunal orders and subsequent disposal of gold.
5. Discrepancy in tribunal orders and subsequent legal implications.
6. Determination of liability and payment of value of gold.

Issue 1: Condonation of delay in filing an appeal challenging tribunal orders:
The High Court noted that the appeal challenging the tribunal orders was filed on 5th October 2011, which was clearly barred by limitation as per the order dated 2nd February 2009. The appellant did not file any application seeking condonation of delay. The Court observed that the delay cannot be condoned under Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The tribunal's order dated 29th April 2011, dismissing the rectification application filed by the appellant, was held to be in accordance with the law due to the limitation issue.

Issue 2: Confiscation and release of gold in a customs duty evasion case:
The case involved the illegal importation of 4 kg of gold in 1992, leading to confiscation and penalties imposed by the Collector of Customs. The Tribunal later set aside the confiscation of 2 kgs of gold and ordered its release upon payment of Redemption Fine and Penalty. The release of gold to one of the importers was carried out in 1993-1994, while the case of the other importer led to inconsistent tribunal orders. Eventually, the Tribunal allowed redemption on payment of duty and directed the release of goods, leading to the disposal of gold by the Department in 2006.

Issue 3: Rectification applications and orders by the Tribunal:
Several rectification applications were filed in the case, with dismissals for various reasons such as non-prosecution and lack of authorization. The High Court intervened in the rectification process, directing the filing of another rectification application. The series of rectification applications and dismissals added complexity to the legal proceedings surrounding the case.

Issue 4: Compliance with tribunal orders and subsequent disposal of gold:
The compliance with tribunal orders, especially regarding the release of gold upon payment of fines and duties, was a crucial aspect of the case. The disposal of gold by the Department in 2006 raised questions of equity and legal obligations, leading to the determination of liability and subsequent payment of the value of gold by the appellant.

Issue 5: Discrepancy in tribunal orders and subsequent legal implications:
The inconsistency in tribunal orders, particularly the order of 25-7-2000, and subsequent rectifications by the High Court highlighted the irregularities in the legal proceedings. The High Court's intervention in 2008 rectified the erroneous orders, leading to a fair and reasonable decision in 2009 directing the appellant to pay the value of gold as on 9-4-2009.

Issue 6: Determination of liability and payment of value of gold:
The High Court determined that the appellant should pay a sum of Rs. 29 lakhs with interest calculated at 12% p.a. from 9-4-2009 till the date of payment, within four weeks from the judgment date. Any remaining amount payable by the respondent towards shortfall in duty/fine or differential duty would be addressed by the Commissioner in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal subject to the directions regarding the payment of the value of gold and interest, emphasizing the importance of compliance with tribunal orders and rectification of legal irregularities.