9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 1113 - HC - CustomsSeeking recovery of damages alongwith interest - Benefit of redemption of goods could not be availed as the goods were sold in the auction - HELD THAT - It is an admitted fact that the goods were sold and were not in existence on the date when the Commissioner (Appeals) passed the order on 27 May 2016. There is no reference whatsoever to the non-existence of the goods. This is a fundamental error in the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Had the Commissioner (Appeals) been apprised of the fact that the goods were not in existence, a different order could have been passed. In this state of facts, it is not possible for us to direct the Respondents to pay damages to the Petitioner. The appropriate course of action would be to relegate the parties to the Commissioner (Appeals) to find the solution to the situation and treat the impugned order as an interim order in the appeal and the restoration of the appeal. The appeal against the amendment order is not restored. Appeals disposed of by the Commissioner (Appeals), Mumbai are restored to the file of the Commissioner (Appeals) - petition disposed off.
Issues:
Prayer for direction to pay damages along with interest, rejection of amendment application, redemption of confiscated goods, goods sold in e-auction, awareness of goods' status, appeal restoration, interim orders. Prayer for Direction to Pay Damages along with Interest: The Petitioner sought a direction for Respondent No.2 to pay damages of Rs.2,48,71,619/- along with 18% per annum interest. The Petitioner's counsel contended that despite the Commissioner (Appeals) granting an option to redeem confiscated goods by paying fines, the goods were already sold in e-auction, rendering the redemption impossible. The Petitioner claimed damages, alleging lack of information from the Customs Department regarding the goods' sale. The Respondents argued that the Petitioner was aware of the sale and the amendment application rejection. Rejection of Amendment Application: The Petitioner had filed an application for amendment of the Import General Manifest (IGM), which was rejected on 6 April 2015. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this rejection in the impugned order dated 27 May 2016. The Petitioner challenged this decision, claiming unawareness of the goods' sale and seeking damages. Redemption of Confiscated Goods and Goods Sold in E-Auction: The Commissioner (Appeals) modified the original orders, offering the option to redeem confiscated goods by paying fines. However, the goods were sold in e-auction on 8 May 2015 and 14 July 2015, making redemption unfeasible. The Petitioner argued that the inability to benefit from the redemption option warranted damages. Awareness of Goods' Status: The Court noted that the goods were no longer in existence when the Commissioner (Appeals) issued the order on 27 May 2016. The absence of any mention of this crucial fact in the order was deemed a fundamental error. The Court emphasized that had the Commissioner been aware of the goods' non-existence, a different decision might have been made. Appeal Restoration and Interim Orders: In light of the above, the Court decided to relegate the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for resolution, treating the impugned order as interim. The Court restored Appeal Nos. 169/2016 and 170/2016 to the Commissioner (Appeals) for reconsideration, maintaining the recognition of the Petitioner's right to redeem confiscated goods. Clauses (ii) and (iii) of the Commissioner's order were deemed interim, with final decisions to be made considering the goods' disposal status. In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of with directions to reconsider the appeal and issue final orders based on the goods' disposal status, emphasizing the need for accurate information and proper consideration of facts in legal proceedings.
|
