2021 (1) TMI 151 - AT - Customs

Refund/release of Sale proceeds along with interest - seized Betel Nuts, which were released, were sold during the pendency of the appeal - HELD THAT - The Tribunal directed the Revenue to handover the sale proceeds of the goods along with interest to the appellant as per provisions of law. Learned Advocate has submitted that the sale proceeds have been handed over. He further brings to my notice that Deputy Commissioner, Lucknow has passed an order dated 05 March, 2020 to refund the sale proceeds but refusing to pay the interest. On being questioned, he fairly agrees that the said order of the Deputy Commissioner is an appealable order and he will file an appeal thereagainst. However, as regards the release of pre-deposit and trucks, he submits that appropriate directions be issued. Inasmuch as the Tribunal directed the Revenue to pay the interest as per the provisions of law and the Deputy Commissioner has passed an appealable order not paying interest, the appellant is at liberty to challenge the same before the appropriate authority. However, as regards the refund of the pre-deposit and release of the trucks, it is directed that the Revenue to do the same within a period of one month from today and report compliance within a month thereafter.

Summary

Issues:
1. Release of sale proceeds of goods with interest
2. Release of seized trucks

Analysis:
1. The appellant's appeal was allowed with consequential relief, entitling them to the release of seized betul nuts and trucks. The betul nuts were sold during the appeal, prompting the appellant to seek the release of the sale proceeds with interest. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner of Customs to hand over the sale proceeds to the appellant along with applicable interest by a specified date. However, the Revenue refunded the sale proceeds without interest, leading to the present application for interest payment and release of the trucks.

2. The appellant's representative highlighted that despite repeated attempts by the appellant, the Revenue had not taken any action for the release of the trucks or payment of interest. The Revenue's representative contended that the sale proceeds had been refunded without provision for interest. The Tribunal's order clearly directed the Revenue to provide interest along with the sale proceeds, as per the law. The appellant's representative acknowledged that the sale proceeds were refunded but pointed out that the Deputy Commissioner refused to pay interest, indicating the possibility of appealing against this decision. However, regarding the release of the pre-deposit and trucks, the appellant sought appropriate directions.

3. The Tribunal recognized the discrepancy between its directive for interest payment and the Deputy Commissioner's decision not to pay interest, allowing the appellant to challenge this decision through the appropriate authority. Concerning the refund of the pre-deposit and release of the trucks, the Tribunal directed the Revenue to comply within one month and report back within another month. The matter was scheduled for further action by the Registry following this compliance period to ensure resolution and adherence to the Tribunal's directives.