9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 486X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the appeal confiscated goods could not have been auctioned without the prior permission of the appellate court - this lapse is being repeated in a large number of cases, therefore, we are constrained to observe that the respondents have not been diligent in discharging their duties. The respondents are directed to issue an official circular within four weeks to all the concerned officials that the confiscated goods which are the subject matter of appeal before any Tribunal or Court shall not be auctioned or disposed of without prior written permission or order from the concerned Tribunal or the court. Since the sale has already been effected it is too late for a day to say that the same was conducted contrary to the provisions or without any reasonable explanation or not. The respondent authorities have not disputed that at the time of seizure the competent authority assessed the value of the goods at ₹ 7,75,792/- and refunded a sum of ₹ 2,28,010/-. By applying the ratio as laid down in reports the respondent authorities are bound to pay the value of the goods assessed at the time of the seizure and not the value which it fetched from the sale of the said goods aft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the time of seizure. The learned advocate for the petitioner further submits that the action of the respondent authorities in selling the seized goods before the expiration of the statutory period for preferring an appeal before the CESTAT is unreasonable, arbitrary and contrary to law. The petitioner relies upon a Division Bench judgement of the Delhi High Court in case of Shilp Impex vs. Union of India reported in 2001 (128) ELT 54 (Del.); Kailash Ribbon Factory Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs Central Excise, New Delhi, reported in 2002 9143) E.L.T. 60 (Del.) and Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar vs. Harinder Singh reported in 2008 (221) E.L.T. 203 (P H) in support of his contention that the authorities are bound to refund either the goods seized in exercise of the statutory power or the value assessed at the time of seizure and not the value which the respondent authorities received while selling the seized goods. By placing reliance upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Northern Plastics Ltd. vs. Collector of Customs and Central Excise reported in 1999 (113) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), the petitioner submits that the moment an order of confiscation / seizure is dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner at Rs. 19,11,930.00 and Rs. 7,16,974.00. the total amount worked out to be Rs. 26,28,904.00. This is the declaration of the petitioner though the respondents have evaluated the value of confiscated goods at Rs. 33.04 lakhs. While granting the order we deem it proper to take the value of goods declared by the petitioner otherwise it would be a case of unjust enrichment. The petitioner has placed reliance on Northern Plastics Ltd. v. Collector of Customs and Central Excise, 1999 (113) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) and Shilps Impex v. Union of India, 2002 (140) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). In Shilps case (supra) their Lordships of the Hon ble Supreme Court observed that the petitioner became entitled to get back what he has paid. In Northern Plastics case (supra) the Hon ble Supreme Court observed: It was contended by Mr. Dave that the applicants are not liable to pay any duty as the goods were not cleared by the respondent and they were subsequently confiscated and sold by the respondent and, therefore, the applicants cannot be said to have imported the goods. On the other hand, it was contended by Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, learned Additional Solicitor General that the import of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not order payment of any amount in these applications. No doubt it would be open to the applicant to initiate such an action if it feels that the loss suffered by it is more than Rs. 33.04 lakhs. Merely because it is open to the applicant to initiate such an action it would not be just and proper to refuse the claim made in these applicants as in any case the applicant is entitled to return the money value of the goods which were illegally confiscated by the respondent. Even though the applicant has claimed interest @21% we do not think it proper to award interest at such a high rate andconsidering the facts and circumstances of the case it would be in the interest of justice if the respondent is directed to return the amount of Rs. 33.04 lakhs with interest at the rate of 12% from 1-2-1989 till the date of payment as the Collector by its order dated 31-1-1989 had held that the goods were properly described and the import was legal. 8. We are of the considered opinion that during the pendency of the appeal confiscated goods could not have been auctioned without the prior permission of the appellate court. 9. From various judicial orders we gather that this lapse is being r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all not be liable to pay the duty thereon. Section 150. Procedure for sale of goods and application of sale proceeds.- (1) Where any goods not being confiscated goods are to be sold under any provisions of this Act, they shall after notice to the owner thereof, be sold by public auction or by tender or with the consent of the owner in any other manner (2) The proceeds of any such sale shall be applied (a) firstly to the payment of the expenses of the sale. (b) next to the payment of the freight and other charges, if any, payable in respect of the goods sold to the carrier, if notice of such charges has been given to the person having custody of the goods. (c) next to the payment of the duty, if any, on the goods sold. (d) next to the payment of the charges in respect of the goods sold due to the person having the custody of the goods. (e) Next to the payment of any amount due from the owner of the goods to the Central Government under the provisions of this Act or any other law relating to customs, and the balance, if any, shall be paid to the owner of the goods. This Court must record that the respondent authorities should not have proceeded in haste to sel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
