1994 (3) TMI 113 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of jewellery and imposition of penalty under the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Disposal of jewellery by the Customs Department.
3. Entitlement of the petitioner to relief regarding the confiscated jewellery.
4. Calculation of refundable amount to the petitioner.
5. Decision on interest payment on the refundable amount.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner arrived in India with undeclared gold and diamond-studded jewellery, leading to its confiscation and a penalty imposed under the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner appealed the decision, which was eventually heard by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the jewellery to be cleared on payment of a fine and reduced the penalty amount. However, the jewellery was later disposed of by the Customs Department, and the petitioner sought its return.

2. The Customs Department informed the Government and the Tribunal about the disposal of the jewellery before the Tribunal's order. The court acknowledged the disposal and noted that the Tribunal should have considered this before directing the return of the jewellery. The court agreed with the decision in a similar case and emphasized the importance of vigilance in protecting one's rights in legal proceedings. The court found the Customs Department's actions in accordance with the law regarding the sale of the jewellery.

3. The petitioner argued for the return of the jewellery based on current market rates since the jewellery was disposed of. However, the court disagreed with this argument, stating that the petitioner should have sought the return of the jewellery earlier. The court directed the respondents to refund a specific amount to the petitioner, considering the redemption fine already paid and the penalty amount refunded. The court found no justification for the respondents' delay in repaying the petitioner.

4. The court calculated the refundable amount to be returned to the petitioner, deducting the redemption fine and penalty already refunded. The court ordered the respondents to refund this amount along with interest at a specified rate from a certain date. The court clarified that the petitioner was not entitled to the market value of the goods but only to the specified refund amount. The court granted relief to the petitioner in the form of the refund and interest payment.

5. In conclusion, the court allowed the writ petition in favor of the petitioner, directing the respondents to refund the specified amount with interest within a set timeframe. The court did not award any costs in this matter.