2019 (4) TMI 2035 - HC - Customs

Seeking provisional release of the seized goods - refund of the seizure value - Section 110(A) of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - In contempt proceedings no direction can be issued, it shall be appropriate to leave it open to the wisdom of the Tribunal to interpret order regarding the refund of the seizure value. Tribunal is expected to dispose of the application as shall be filed by the petitioner preferably within a period of thirty days. Contempt proceedings are, accordingly closed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the Order-in-Original dated 03.01.2017 regarding refund of seizure value.
2. Ambiguity in the position of refund as per the Tribunal's decision.
3. Contempt proceedings and the Tribunal's role in interpreting the order.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the interpretation of the Order-in-Original dated 03.01.2017 concerning the refund of the seizure value. The petitioner had filed an appeal claiming provisional release of the seized goods under section 110(A) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appeal highlighted that no order was passed on the application, and the goods were sold at auction below market price, indicating malafide intent by the authorities. The prayer clause sought setting aside the impugned order and refunding the seizure value.

The petitioner argued that since the Tribunal set aside the Order-in-Original and allowed the appeal, the refund of the seizure value should automatically be in favor of the petitioner. Conversely, the respondent's counsel contended that the position on refund was ambiguous and should be clarified by the Tribunal itself. The lack of a positive direction for refund in the Tribunal's decision led to this ambiguity, with the petitioner claiming that refund should be automatic upon appeal allowance.

The Court concluded that in contempt proceedings, no specific direction for refund could be issued, leaving it to the Tribunal's discretion to interpret the order regarding the refund of the seizure value. The Tribunal was directed to dispose of any application filed by the petitioner within thirty days, indicating that the Tribunal's clarification on the refund issue was crucial. Consequently, the contempt proceedings were closed, emphasizing the need for the Tribunal's input on the refund matter to resolve the ambiguity surrounding the seizure value refund.