9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 1338 - HC - CustomsRefund claim - provisional release of seized goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act 1962 - betelnuts - HELD THAT - This issue on an earlier occasion had been deliberated upon by this Court and by order dated 24.04.2024, had directed the learned DSGI to obtain instructions on the amount that would be acceptable to the respondents. However, as no specific instructions were forthcoming, and the respondent No. 2 maintaining their stand, without further dwelling on any other aspect, the order dated 24.04.2024 will serve to dispose of this matter. In terms of the order dated 24.04.2024, the respondent No. 2 is directed to refund the amount of Rs. 60 Lakhs to the writ petitioner on sufficient proof of identity being provided, within a period of 8(eight) weeks from the date this order is presented before the respondent No. 2, and if the respondent No. 2, fails to comply, interest on the expiry of the said 8(eight) weeks shall be payable on the refund amount at the rate of 12% per annum. The petition is allowed.
Issues:
1. Seizure of goods and refusal of provisional release under Section 110A of the Customs Act 1962. 2. Destruction of seized goods and claim for refund by the petitioner. 3. Dispute over the amount of refund due to the petitioner. 4. Failure of respondent to implement orders of various courts regarding the seized goods. Analysis: Issue 1: Seizure of Goods and Refusal of Provisional Release The petitioner's goods, betelnuts weighing 32 MT, were seized by respondent No. 2 on 28.10.2017. The petitioner sought provisional release under Section 110A of the Customs Act 1962, which was denied. The Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Kolkata later set aside the seizure, ruling in favor of the petitioner. This decision was upheld by a Division Bench of the High Court and the Supreme Court. Despite these rulings, the seized goods were destroyed by respondent No. 2, leading to the current petition for a refund. Issue 2: Destruction of Seized Goods and Claim for Refund The petitioner, through their counsel, argued that the respondent's destruction of the seized betelnuts necessitates a refund of the goods' assessed value, Rs. 88 Lakhs, along with interest. The respondent claimed the goods were destroyed due to being unfit for human consumption, citing the State Public Health Laboratory's report. The petitioner's request for provisional release at a reduced price of Rs. 96 per kg was highlighted by the respondent to counter the refund claim. Issue 3: Dispute Over Amount of Refund The primary issue to be decided was the amount of refund due to the petitioner. The court had previously directed the respondent to determine an acceptable refund amount, but no specific instructions were provided. During the hearing, the petitioner agreed to settle for Rs. 60 Lakhs, which was Rs. 28 Lakhs less than the value of the seized goods at the time of seizure. The court ordered the respondent to refund this amount within eight weeks, with interest at 12% per annum if the refund was delayed. Issue 4: Failure to Implement Court Orders The respondent's failure to implement the orders of the Tribunal, Division Bench, and Supreme Court regarding the seized goods led to the petitioner's claim for a refund. The court ultimately directed the respondent to refund Rs. 60 Lakhs to the petitioner within a specified timeframe, failing which interest would accrue on the refund amount. The writ petition was allowed and disposed of accordingly, settling the dispute over the refund amount.
|
