Erring officials of customs to compensate the importer personally to the Extent of ₹ 14,69,650/- plus 9% interest for their acts of omission and commission - Abnormal delay in release of seized betel nuts

Failure to release the goods despite the fact that Adjudicating Authority directed the officers to release the goods.

Patna High Court came heavily on the Erring Customs Officers with the following observations:

In the appeal against the order of the adjudicating authority dated 29.11.2013 was filed on or after 25.04.2014 and there was no stay granted by the appellate authority which could have enabled the authorities of the Custom Department to detain the release of the betel nuts in favour of the petitioners.

71. Thus the fact remains that only after the petitioners had filed writ petition on 05.08.2014 and an order was passed by this Court on 06.08.2014, directing the standing counsel for the Customs Department to disclose the reasons for not releasing the goods by filing the counter affidavit that the conditional order of release on furnishing of taking bank guarantee and bond by the petitioners had been passed on 8.8.2014 which in turn would go to show that this could have been done even on 24.4.2014 if not on 29.11.2013 or 28.3.2013. Thus, the reason for not releasing the goods on account of pendency of the appeal is also a mere hoax and not permissible in law. The manner in which the authorities have in fact sought to keep the petitioners deprived of the seized goods for a period of almost one and a half year, therefore, cannot be approved by this Court.

X X X X X

76. Thus, having an overall picture this court will have no difficulty in coming to the ultimate conclusion that the petitioners on account of abnormal delay of almost 1½ years caused in release of its seized betel nuts have been put to a perennial loss. Since the authorities themselves had valued and quantified the price of the seized articles, namely, split betel nuts weighing 15.470 M.T. to the tune of ₹ 14,69,650/- on 17.2.2013, the petitioners would become at least entitled to recover this amount from the officials of the Custom Department.

X X X X X

82. Thus, when this Court has found that the petitioners have been put to a loss of at least ₹ 14,69,650/- on account of complete deterioration of quality of split betel nuts solely on account of deliberate laches on the part of the officials of the Custom Department it would direct respondent no.2 to pay a sum of ₹ 14,69,650/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the period 28.3.2013, the date on which the order of provisional release of the seized article was passed by the competent authority to the order directing release of the seized articles dated 9.8.2014 within a period of three months from today.

83. It is, however, made clear that such amount, which has to be paid by way of compensation for the loss caused to the petitioners on account of delay of nearly 1½ years in release of the seized articles, shall be recovered from the erring officials and for the purposes of fixing individual responsibility on such erring officials this Court would direct the Chairman of Central Board of Excise and Customs Department of Revenue, New Delhi to get an enquiry conducted by an Officer not below in the rank of Chief Commissioner of Customs who must not be posted and/or associated in any manner with Patna Zone of the Custom Department.

84. Upon completion of such enquiry and upon submission of enquiry report appropriate action under the orders of Chairman Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi be taken against erring officials not only for recovery of the amount directed to be paid under this judgment to the petitioners but also for initiating and concluding disciplinary proceedings by the competent authority against the erring officials of Customs Department of Patna zone who are found to have caused delay in release of the seized articles of the petitioners in any part of period in between 28.3.2013 to 9.8.2014. This whole exercise must be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this judgment by the Chairman of the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi, who having taken his action as directed above shall also submit his action taken report to the registry of this Court on or before 30th of June, 2016.

85. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this writ application is allowed with a cost of ₹ 25,000/- quantified by this Court for coercing and compelling the petitioners to file this writ petition for release of their seized betel nuts to be paid by the Respondents to the petitioners within a period of three months from today.

See:- M/s Overseas Enterprises Versus The Union of India through the Chief Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) , The Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) , Customs, The Additional Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication) , Customs, The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) , Customs, The Superintendent of Customs (Preventive) , Office of Commissioner Customs and The Superintendent of Customs (Adjudication) , Customs - 2016 (1) TMI 726 - PATNA HIGH COURT