2019 (2) TMI 1122 - AT - Customs

Implementation of order - provisional release of the seized goods - Held that - The equipments are lying at various sites after seizure and, in all probability, abandoned by all unless the respondent-Commissioner had taken steps to ensure that custodians are held accountable for proper upkeep. The applicant is understandably concerned about the condition of the cranes and pleads that their request for release is motivated by the desire to maintain them without loss of value except that attributable to efflux of time. One would expect a similar concern on the part of the respondent-Commissioner too as, in the event of confiscation investing the assets with the Central Government, it is in public interest that these should fetch as high a value as possible. The respondent Commissioner are directed to place on record by 19th February, 2019, a proposal for the best management of these assets while they remain under seizure should the applicant be unable to comply with the terms of the provisional release now ordered.

Issues involved: Proper maintenance of seized cranes, compliance with judicial orders, responsibility for custodianship and upkeep of seized equipments, public interest in maintaining asset value, directive for best management proposal.

Analysis:
1. Proper maintenance of seized cranes: The judgment addresses the issue of responsible and proper maintenance of 55 seized cranes, which were impugned in a dispute before the Tribunal. The Tribunal directed the release of the cranes in accordance with the law, emphasizing the importance of maintaining their value during the period of seizure. The respondent Commissioner is directed to ensure the best management of these assets while they remain under seizure, highlighting the significance of preserving their condition.

2. Compliance with judicial orders: The judgment criticizes the respondent Commissioner for disregarding the Tribunal's order by imposing harsh terms for release, which were more severe than originally prescribed. The Tribunal emphasizes that conditions imposed should be intended to be complied with and not used as a means to delay or obstruct the release of seized goods. The importance of adhering to judicial discipline and respecting higher judicial directions is underscored.

3. Responsibility for custodianship and upkeep: The judgment highlights the concern regarding the current condition of the equipments, which are reportedly lying at various sites after seizure. The applicant expresses a desire to maintain the cranes without loss of value, emphasizing the need for proper upkeep. The Tribunal directs the respondent Commissioner to ensure that custodians are held accountable for maintaining the assets and to propose a plan for their best management to prevent any loss of value.

4. Public interest in maintaining asset value: The judgment emphasizes that in the event of confiscation, it is in the public interest that the seized assets fetch as high a value as possible. The reluctance to release the cranes without a valid reason is seen as detrimental to the exchequer. The Tribunal highlights the importance of considering public interest and maximizing asset value when making decisions regarding the release and custody of seized goods.

5. Directive for best management proposal: The judgment directs the respondent Commissioner to submit a proposal for the best management of the seized assets by a specified date. If the applicant is unable to comply with the terms of provisional release, the Commissioner is required to personally give assurance and undertake responsibility for maintenance. This directive aims to ensure proper custodianship and maintenance of the seized equipments, emphasizing the accountability of the tax administration in safeguarding the assets.

← Previous Next →