9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Claim for interest on the market value of seized silver bars. Analysis: 1. The petitioner sought mandamus against the respondents to quash a communication and to direct payment of interest on the value of 85 bars of silver seized from his father. The silver bars were seized under the Customs Act and deposited in the Treasury. Legal proceedings followed, with the father claiming lawful acquisition of the silver bars. 2. The Central Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal held in favor of the petitioner, stating that the silver bars were acquired before import restrictions were imposed. The Tribunal directed the return of the silver bars. 3. The Revenue challenged the Tribunal's finding, leading to a series of legal proceedings. Ultimately, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal, and the silver bars were returned to the petitioner. 4. Subsequently, the petitioner claimed interest on the market value of the silver bars, but the respondents denied the claim. The petitioner relied on legal precedents to support his claim for interest. 5. The Court considered the precedents cited and concluded that the claim for interest on the returned commodity was not sustainable. The Court highlighted that the principles allowing interest on detained goods did not apply in this case as the silver bars were returned intact and were not subject to decay or depreciation. 6. The Court emphasized that the law usually authorizes the disposal of seized commodities to prevent deterioration and provides for the return of money realized with interest if the seizure is found to be unsustainable. 7. The Court distinguished the petitioner's case from the precedents cited, which involved claims for interest on detained money, not on the value of returned goods. 8. The Court dismissed the petitioner's claim for interest, noting that there was no evidence of loss or damages suffered due to the retention of the silver bars. The Court also highlighted that the demand for interest was raised only after the silver bars were returned, and no such demand was made earlier. 9. The Court found that the petitioner's claim for interest was a supplementary relief sought after the main writ petition had been allowed, indicating that such a claim should have been raised in a fresh petition. 10. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the petition, stating that in the circumstances, they were not inclined to grant the claim for interest on the market value of the silver bars.
|
