2014 (2) TMI 538 - HC - Customs

Writ of Mandamus - claim of interest at the rate of 9% in respect of sale value of the gold which was sold by the Customs Department pursuant to the order of absolute confiscation which was passed. - Held that - It is not in dispute that the said amount paid to the petitioner by way of refund by the Department. Now the claim of the petitioner is that the Department is liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the order i.e., 12-1-2007 till the order of the Tribunal on 17-12-2007. Petitioner having not questioned the sale of the gold bars during the pendency of the appeal, nor made any claim before the Tribunal nor made any representation to the authorities, now cannot seek for interest to be granted for the said period by filing this writ petition. - when the sale was effected the goods in question namely, gold bars stood absolutely confiscated and therefore, as on such date, the petitioner had no subsisting right over the said goods - Decided against the petitioner and in favor of revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Claim for interest at the rate of 9% on the sale value of gold confiscated by Customs Department.
- Entitlement to claim interest for the period between the date of the order and the Tribunal's decision.
- Failure to request interest from the Department during the proceedings.
- Legal implications of the sale of confiscated goods before the Tribunal's decision.
- The impact of not questioning the sale of goods during the appeal process.
- The absence of a stay order on the confiscation of goods leading to their sale.

Analysis:

The petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus for interest payment at 9% on the sale value of gold confiscated by the Customs Department. The Commissioner of Customs initially ordered absolute confiscation of gold bars and a car, with a redemption option for a fine and penalty. The petitioner appealed, leading to a Tribunal order reducing penalties and allowing redemption of the car. However, the Department had already sold most gold bars and the car before the Tribunal's decision, prompting a rectification petition. The Tribunal revised the order, directing the Commissioner to determine fines and penalties from the sale proceeds and refund the balance to the petitioner.

Regarding the claim for interest, the petitioner did not request interest during the proceedings, nor made any representation to the authorities. The Tribunal's revised order resulted in a refund to the petitioner, who did not contest the sale of goods during the appeal process. The absence of a stay order on confiscation allowed the Department to sell the gold bars, extinguishing any subsisting right of the petitioner over the goods.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that the petitioner's failure to challenge the sale of goods during the appeal process and the absence of a stay on confiscation precluded any entitlement to interest. The Court held that as the goods were confiscated and sold before the Tribunal's decision, the petitioner had no valid claim for interest.