2017 (8) TMI 257 - HC - Customs

Seizure of goods - Smuggling - the Criminal Revision Case filed by the respondent was only with regard to the direction issued by the trial Court to return the seized materials and not against the order of acquittal - Held that - the petitioner, through his counsel, sent a notice dated 27.03.2002 demanding the payment of sale proceeds along with interest. This was received by the office of the respondent on 01.04.2002 as evidenced by the office seal affixed in the representation. This was followed by reminder dated 24.08.2004 sent by the registered post, which has been received by the office of the respondent on 26.08.2004 as seen from the postal acknowledgment. Since no action has been taken, the petitioner has filed this writ petition in the year 2004 - the petitioner is directed to submit a fresh representation along with copies of the earlier representations and a copy of this order to the respondents within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner seeking writ of mandamus for payment of sale proceeds of seized goods. Interpretation of trial court's order directing return of seized materials or sale proceeds. Respondent's contention on confiscated materials. Compliance with court orders for payment of sale proceeds. Lack of counter affidavit by respondents.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition requesting a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents to pay the value of sale proceeds of seized goods, including Zip Fasteners and Rubber bands, along with interest. These goods were seized on allegations of smuggling, leading to a prosecution under the Customs Act. The trial court acquitted the petitioner and directed the return of seized materials or payment of sale proceeds. The respondent challenged this direction through a Criminal Revision Case, arguing that confiscated materials cannot be returned. However, the court dismissed the revision, emphasizing that the seized properties were integral to the offense and subject to return upon acquittal. The court held that the trial court was empowered to order the return of sale proceeds from properties sold during the trial. The petitioner demanded payment after the revision dismissal, but no action was taken by the respondents, prompting the writ petition.

The court noted the absence of a counter affidavit from the respondents despite serving notice. Given the petition's age, the court issued directions for the petitioner to submit a fresh representation with earlier copies and the court's order to the respondents. The competent authority was instructed to provide a reasoned decision within three weeks. Any necessary clarification would involve the petitioner or their authorized representative. Ultimately, the court disposed of the writ petition with the issued directions, emphasizing no costs to be borne.