9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding failure to release goods, order of confiscation, appeal to Commissioner (Appeals), disposal of goods, compensation for disposed goods. Analysis: The petitioner's grievance was the failure to release goods ordered by the Commissioner (Appeals) after being seized by Customs Officers. The goods, of foreign origin, were seized and ordered for confiscation by the Additional Collector, Customs, who concluded they were part of a clandestine activity. The Commissioner (Appeals) partially allowed the appeal, ordering the release of most goods and reducing the penalty. The petitioner did not appeal the decision regarding Electronic Calculators, which were allowed to be redeemed. The Department's appeal to the Tribunal was dismissed, upholding the Commissioner's decision. The petitioner sought release of goods after the appellate order, but they had been disposed of by sale. The petitioner requested compensation for the disposed goods' value. The Department was directed to pay the realized amount to the petitioner, which was later sanctioned. The petitioner, unsatisfied, sought an amendment for a higher amount, claiming the goods' value as Rs. 1,05,065. During the hearing, the petitioner argued the unjustified disposal of goods while the appeal was pending and challenged the appellate authority's decision on Electronic Calculators. The respondents justified the disposal based on the affidavit-in-reply. The Court noted the finality of the appellate authority's decision and the lack of challenge by the petitioner through statutory remedies. The Court held that compensation for disposed goods should be paid if unable to return them, likely based on the goods' value. Disputes over the goods' value were deemed factual issues beyond the scope of Article 226, suggesting pursuing other remedies such as civil suits for compensation recovery. Ultimately, the Court disposed of the petition, stating the authorities should compensate if unable to return goods, leaving the petitioner to pursue further remedies for compensation recovery. The ruling discharged the rule with no order as to costs.
|
