9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Claim for additional reward by petitioner from Customs Authorities. Analysis: The petitioner sought a further amount of Rs. 24.60 lakhs as a reward from the Respondent Customs Authorities for providing information leading to the realization of customs duty, penalty, and interest. The petitioner claimed entitlement to a reward of 20% of the duty, penalty, and fine realized by the customs authorities as per Circular No. 13011/3/85 Ad.V. The petitioner contended that the information provided led to the recovery of a total amount of Rs. 2.98 crores by the authorities. The petitioner had received partial payments totaling Rs. 35 lakhs and claimed the balance amount through a representation to the authorities. The Respondent Customs Authorities contested the petitioner's claim, stating that most of the goods were already located at Haldia and that they had recovered Rs. 1.68 crores towards duty, penalty, and late payment charges from the importer. A Reward Committee had settled the final reward at Rs. 30 lakhs in addition to the advance payment of Rs. 5 lakhs made earlier to the petitioner. The authorities argued that the quantum of reward had been determined by a Committee considering all relevant factors and that it was not justiciable. The petitioner's counsel relied on a judgment of the Delhi High Court and argued that the information provided by the petitioner led to the recovery of the amount, emphasizing that the authorities should not deny the reward based on technicalities. On the other hand, the authorities' counsel cited Supreme Court judgments to support their stance that the reward is an ex gratia payment, subject to guidelines, and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The Supreme Court held that a Writ of Mandamus can only be granted when there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned, and a legal right exists under the statute to enforce its performance. The Court noted that the Circular on which the petitioner based the reward claim specified that the reward is an ex gratia payment granted at the absolute discretion of the competent authority. The Court emphasized that it cannot adjudicate disputes regarding the extent of information provided by the informer or the exact amount of duty and penalty recovered. The Court dismissed the writ application, stating that the appropriateness of the quantum of reward could not be agitated in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
|
