9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 535 - HC - CustomsConfiscation - Diamonds - appellant prays for return of the goods in the same condition, in which they were seized or pay the market value of the diamonds, as on the date of the filing of the writ petition - Held that - This Court is not inclined to accept the said contention for the reason that the appellant had already accepted the value of the diamonds, fixed by CEGAT at ₹ 4,27,000/- and also paid the redemption fine. Appellant cannot approbate and reprobate. At one stage, for the purpose of redeeming the goods, the appellant had accepted the value of diamonds as ₹ 4,27,000/-, which decision cannot be retracted, by filing a writ petition. Having accepted the same, contrary contention of the appellant that at the time of seizure, the value of diamonds, was ₹ 40 Lakhs, cannot be accepted - appeal dismissed.
Issues:
1. Compensation for seized goods. 2. Duty of care and tortious liability of the State. 3. Calculation of compensation amount. Issue 1: Compensation for seized goods The case involves a dispute over the compensation for seized goods, specifically diamonds, by the Collector of Central Excise and Customs in 1979. The original value of the diamonds was &8377; 4,27,074, which was later confirmed by the authority. Despite a higher valuation of &8377; 40 Lakhs in 1998, the appellant accepted the CEGAT's valuation and paid the redemption fine. The petition sought a mandamus to return the diamonds or provide compensation. The writ Court fixed compensation at &8377; 5,00,000 plus interest at 18% per annum from 1996 to 2003, as the diamonds were not returned. Issue 2: Duty of care and tortious liability of the State The judgment delves into the tortious liability of the State concerning the negligence leading to loss of property. It cites the Customs Act, 1962, which mandates return of seized goods if certain conditions are not met within six months. Referring to previous cases, the judgment emphasizes the duty of care owed by authorities in safeguarding seized goods until their return or lawful disposal. The court highlights the importance of duty in public law tort and the liability of public bodies for negligence or failure to exercise reasonable care. Issue 3: Calculation of compensation amount The writ Court analyzed the appellant's claim for &8377; 40 Lakhs in compensation, noting inconsistencies in their valuation of the diamonds over time. It rejected the higher claim, considering the appellant's acceptance of the CEGAT's valuation and payment of the redemption fine based on that amount. The court held that the appellant could not change their stance post-acceptance. The compensation was fixed at &8377; 5,00,000 with interest, not as interest but as compensation due to the lack of a clear parameter for valuation. In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of compensation for seized goods, the duty of care and tortious liability of the State, and the calculation of the compensation amount. It emphasized the importance of consistency in claims and upheld the writ Court's decision on compensation, dismissing the appeal.
|
