1990 (5) TMI 162 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to the value of the fish and shrimps.
2. Entitlement to the value of the trawler.
3. Entitlement to the return of Rs. 4 lakhs deposited as redemption fine.
4. Entitlement to damages for non-use of the trawler and litigation costs.
5. Reliefs to which the appellants are entitled.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to the Value of the Fish and Shrimps:
The appellants argued that the fish and shrimps seized should have been returned to them as they were the lawful owners. The Tribunal noted that the Customs authorities had not taken adequate care to prevent the trawler and its catch from being taken by Southern Marine Services Company Limited. The Tribunal found that the appellants were indeed the owners of the fish and shrimps and were entitled to compensation for the same. The Tribunal fixed the value of the fish and shrimps at Rs. 5 lakhs, noting that the fish was worth more than Rs. 2 lakhs, as evidenced by the redemption fine.

2. Entitlement to the Value of the Trawler:
The appellants claimed Rs. 50 lakhs as the value of the trawler. The Tribunal examined the Time Charter Agreement, which indicated that Southern Marine Services Company Limited was the owner of the trawler. The agreement specified that the appellants were only hirers and not owners. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants were not entitled to claim the value of the trawler, as it belonged to Southern Marine Services Company Limited.

3. Entitlement to the Return of Rs. 4 Lakhs Deposited as Redemption Fine:
The appellants argued that the Rs. 4 lakhs deposited as redemption fine should be returned to them. However, the Tribunal found that this amount was deposited by Southern Marine Services Company Limited and not by the appellants. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the appellants were not entitled to the return of this amount.

4. Entitlement to Damages for Non-Use of the Trawler and Litigation Costs:
The appellants sought damages for the period during which they could not use the trawler and for litigation costs. The Tribunal held that such damages could not be granted in these proceedings. The appropriate remedy for such claims would be to file a suit in a competent court. The Tribunal concluded that it did not have the jurisdiction to grant such reliefs.

5. Reliefs to which the Appellants are Entitled:
The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay Rs. 5 lakhs to the appellants towards the value of the fish and shrimps within two months from the date of receipt of the order. The claims for the value of the trawler, the return of Rs. 4 lakhs, and damages for non-use of the trawler and litigation costs were dismissed.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed. The appellants were awarded Rs. 5 lakhs as compensation for the fish and shrimps, while other claims were dismissed.