2022 (12) TMI 152 - HC - Customs

Maintainability of petition - refund claim - Auction - seized Betel Nuts - Whether respondent petitioner can take shelter under Section 150 and Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the purpose of claiming approximate value assigned in the seizure report or not? - HELD THAT - The writ petition filed by the respondent - petitioner is not maintainable for the reasons that there are three materials in respect of value of the seized betel nuts namely self declaration made by the respondent dated 13.01.1999 and he had valued at Rs. 8,59,125/- and the same amount is supported by Annexure 3 series. On the other hand, approximate value has been assigned by the seizure of the goods authority on 22.01.1999 and it is valued at Rs. 21,68,100/- - thus, it is a clear case of disputed facts hence, writ petition is not maintainable, however, having regard to the fact that alleged incident relates back to of the year 1999 read with writ petition filed in the year 2005 and L.P.A. filed in the year 2011 and we are in the year, 2022, we thought that matter is warranted for giving quietus . The respondent - petitioner cannot have any assistance in terms of the aforesaid Sections for the reasons that he has not questioned the validity of the auction proceedings undertaken by the appellant Department. As long as respondent petitioner has not questioned the validity of the auction proceedings, he cannot contend that there is a violation of Section 14 and Section 150 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant - Department have made out a prima facie case so as to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge dated 25.01.2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2221 of 2005 and the fact that during pendency of the present lis , the respondent petitioner has been extended a sum of Rs. 8,59,125/- along with 10% interest - the respondent petitioner is entitled to refund of sum of Rs. 8,59,125/- in terms of self declaration dated 13.01.1999 read with receipts dated 19.01.1999, since self declared value has been paid along with interest, nothing remains in the present lis . Application allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition.
2. Entitlement of the respondent to the refund amount.
3. Error by the learned Single Judge in determining the refund amount.
4. Applicability of cited decisions to the respondent's case.
5. Applicability of Section 14 and Section 150 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:
The court examined whether the writ petition filed by the respondent was maintainable. The respondent sought a writ of mandamus for the release of the balance amount based on the approximate value assigned in the seizure report. The court noted that the respondent had not established a statutory right to claim Rs. 21,68,100/-. The appellant department had already refunded Rs. 7,04,416/- based on the auction value. The court concluded that the claim involved disputed facts, which are not suitable for adjudication under writ jurisdiction, as per the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Shubhas Jain vs. Rajeshwari Shivam and Others.

2. Entitlement of the Respondent to the Refund Amount:
The respondent claimed a refund of Rs. 21,68,100/- based on the approximate value in the seizure report. However, the court found that the respondent had declared the value of the seized goods as Rs. 8,59,125/- on 13.01.1999, which was supported by receipts dated 19.01.1999 (Annexure - 3 series). The court held that the respondent could not disown his self-declared value and rely on the approximate value assigned by the Customs Authority. Therefore, the respondent was entitled to the self-declared value of Rs. 8,59,125/- along with interest, which had already been paid during the litigation.

3. Error by the Learned Single Judge:
The court found that the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the respondent was entitled to the approximate value of Rs. 21,68,100/- mentioned in the seizure report. The Single Judge failed to appreciate the self-declaration by the respondent and the receipts supporting the value of Rs. 8,59,125/-. The court emphasized that the approximate value in the seizure report was not based on any material information.

4. Applicability of Cited Decisions:
The respondent cited several decisions to support his claim. However, the court found these decisions not applicable to the case at hand. The cited decisions did not involve self-declaration, material receipts, or auction realization amounts. The court concluded that the factual aspects of the present case distinguished it from the cited decisions.

5. Applicability of Section 14 and Section 150 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The respondent argued that Sections 14 and 150 of the Customs Act, 1962, supported his claim. However, the court noted that the respondent had not questioned the validity of the auction proceedings. Without challenging the auction's validity, the respondent could not claim a violation of these sections. The court held that the respondent could not rely on these sections to claim the approximate value assigned in the seizure report.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated 25.01.2011. The respondent was found entitled to the self-declared value of Rs. 8,59,125/- along with 10% interest, which had already been paid. Consequently, the court concluded that nothing remained in the present litigation.