2018 (11) TMI 1860 - HC - Customs

Refund of sale proceeds of the confiscated goods which were sold in public auction - HELD THAT - Petitioner in effect seeks implementation of the order of CESTAT for which he has efficacious remedy by laying motion before the CESTAT. Writ petition, as such, is not worth to be entertained is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to seek implementation of the order of CESTAT by laying proper motion before the CESTAT. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Ownership claim over seized goods (betel nuts) confiscated by the Commissioner of Customs.
2. Refund of sale proceeds of the confiscated goods following the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).

Ownership Claim over Seized Goods:
The petitioner claimed ownership of the seized goods (betel nuts) confiscated by the Commissioner of Customs, which were later sold in a public auction. The sale proceeds totaling ?66,51,140 were deposited in the State Bank of India, Guwahati. The order-in-original by the Commissioner of Customs was set aside by the CESTAT, Kolkata, Eastern Zonal Bench. However, the petitioner sought the refund of the sale proceeds, as they were not yet refunded, leading to the filing of the instant petition.

Refund of Sale Proceeds:
The CESTAT had set aside the order of the Commissioner of Customs and the petitioner sought the refund of the sale proceeds of the confiscated goods. The High Court noted that the petitioner's request for implementation of the CESTAT order could be addressed by submitting a motion before the CESTAT. The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner should seek implementation of the CESTAT order through the appropriate channel, rather than through the writ petition. The dismissal of the writ petition was done with the liberty granted to the petitioner to pursue the implementation of the CESTAT order by filing the necessary motion before the tribunal.

In conclusion, the High Court of Meghalaya dismissed the writ petition concerning the ownership claim over seized goods and the refund of sale proceeds of the confiscated goods. The court directed the petitioner to seek the implementation of the CESTAT order by submitting a motion before the tribunal, emphasizing that the writ petition was not the appropriate avenue for such relief.