2017 (3) TMI 496 - HC - Customs

Legality and validity of the attachment - liability of interest - petitioner argue that out of sheer compulsion and force a sum of ₹ 35 lakhs was paid to the respondents, but that does not mean that the petitioners admit the liability. In any event, the sum of ₹ 35 lakhs is not paid belatedly but promptly - Held that - Once the petitioners have paid a sum of ₹ 35 lakhs, may be in the year 2013, as claimed by Mr. Jetly, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, we do not allow the respondents to continue the attachment for any balance quantum or sum that is due and allegedly payable. It may be as interest but for that the respondents would have to institute appropriate legal proceedings. They may in such proceedings claim that they are entitled to attach or continue the attachment on the immoveable and moveable properties for the claim of interest - this Court has not expressed any opinion on the point of the legality and validity of the attachment - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.

Issues:
1. Recovery of customs duty and interest.
2. Dispute over payment of interest.
3. Continuation of attachment on immoveable property.
4. Legal proceedings and relief options.
5. Release of property from attachment.
6. Clarification on legality and validity of attachment.

Recovery of Customs Duty and Interest:
The High Court found that respondent Nos.1 to 3 had recovered the amount payable as customs duty from the defaulters. The Court noted that the Department sought to recover interest from the petitioners, who denied any liability to pay interest. The petitioners argued that the payment made was under compulsion and did not imply admission of liability. The Court acknowledged the factual disputes and emphasized that the issue of interest payment could not be resolved within its limited jurisdiction. It was clarified that any claim for interest would require the respondents to initiate appropriate legal proceedings.

Dispute Over Payment of Interest:
The Court highlighted the factual disputes regarding the payment of interest, with the petitioners denying any privity of contract with the respondents. Despite the petitioners paying a sum of ?35 lakhs in 2013, the Court did not allow the respondents to continue the attachment for any alleged balance amount due as interest. The Court suggested that the respondents could pursue legal proceedings to claim interest but clarified that the petitioners did not admit liability for interest payment.

Continuation of Attachment on Immoveable Property:
The Court ordered that the attachment on the immoveable property of the petitioner would continue for four weeks. If the respondents initiated legal proceedings within this period, they could seek reliefs, including continuing the attachment, from the Competent Court/Forum. However, if no legal proceedings were initiated within four weeks, the property would be released from attachment, and the respondents could not pursue any further claims for balance dues or interest against the property.

Legal Proceedings and Relief Options:
The Court directed that any relief sought by the respondents through legal proceedings would be granted by the Competent Court/Forum based on its own merit and in accordance with the law, independent of the High Court's directions. The Court clarified that it had not examined the rival contentions regarding the claim for interest or the amount released by the petitioners in favor of the respondents.

Release of Property from Attachment:
After four weeks, if the respondents failed to commence legal proceedings and apply for relief, the property would be released from attachment. The order specified that the release was without prejudice to the rights and contentions of all parties involved. The Court made it clear that it had not expressed any opinion on the legality and validity of the attachment.

Clarification on Legality and Validity of Attachment:
The Court emphasized that it had not expressed any opinion on the legality and validity of the attachment in this case. The rule was made absolute in the terms outlined in the judgment, and no order as to costs was issued.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Bombay High Court provides a comprehensive overview of the issues involved and the Court's findings and directions regarding the recovery of customs duty, dispute over payment of interest, continuation of attachment on immoveable property, legal proceedings and relief options, release of property from attachment, and clarification on the legality and validity of the attachment.

← Previous Next →