2025 (3) TMI 346 - HC - Customs

Seeking enforcement of the order for the return of seized gold - petitioner submitted that the market value of the detained gold today would be substantially higher - HELD THAT - There can be no justification for the long delay in non-payment by the Department. Submission made by the Department is accepted by the Court that the amount would be paid with interest as directed within two weeks. Petition disposed off.

Summary

The issues presented and considered in the judgment are as follows:1. Enforcement of an order for the return of seized gold.2. Delay in refunding the value of the seized gold.3. Market value compensation for delayed payment.Issue 1: Enforcement of an order for the return of seized goldThe relevant legal framework and precedents include Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which allows for the enforcement of fundamental rights. The Court interpreted the previous order directing the refund of the value of the gold detained by the Department. The key evidence and findings highlighted the failure to serve a Show Cause Notice to the Petitioner for six months after the seizure. The Court reasoned that the Department's disposal of the seized gold without notice to the Petitioner was unsustainable in law. The Court concluded by setting aside the adjudication order and directing the Department to refund the value of the gold to the Petitioner.Issue 2: Delay in refunding the value of the seized goldThe Court considered the delay in refunding the value of the seized gold despite the previous order. The Petitioner had made representations to the Department, but no refund was forthcoming. The Court noted the long delay in non-payment by the Department, especially after the matter was disposed of by the Supreme Court. The Court accepted the Department's submission that the amount would be paid with interest within two weeks.Issue 3: Market value compensation for delayed paymentThe Court addressed the Petitioner's claim for market value compensation due to the delay in payment. The Court ruled that if the amount was not paid by a specified date, the Department would be liable to pay the market value of the detained gold as of the date when the Supreme Court dismissed the matter, along with simple interest. The Court disposed of the petition on these terms and set a compliance date for further action.Significant holdings:- The Court set aside the adjudication order and directed the Department to refund the value of the seized gold to the Petitioner.- The Court ordered the Department to pay interest on the refunded amount for any delay.- If the Department failed to pay by a specified date, they would be liable to pay the market value of the gold as of the dismissal date by the Supreme Court, along with interest.In conclusion, the judgment addressed the enforcement of an order for the return of seized gold, the delay in refunding the value of the gold, and the potential market value compensation for delayed payment. The Court emphasized the importance of timely compliance with court orders and provided clear directives for the Department to follow.