9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 1114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvice of the writ of summons and service of notices upon the defendants, the defendants have failed to enter appearance and filed their written statement. 2. In the circumstances, although the plaintiff is not required to lead any evidence in view of the doctrine of non-traverse and the fact that the plaintiff having knowledge of the proceeding has avoided to appear and contest the proceeding, the Plaintiff No. 1 appears and gives evidence in support of the claim made in the plaint. The cause of action in the suit arose by reason of illegal seizure of 33320 kgs. betel nuts which were subsequently sold by the Customs Authorities. The plaintiff claims that the said confiscation was illegal and held to be so by Superintendent (Adjudicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... intiffs entitled to the amount claimed in the suit after establishing the actual value of the goods. The Plaintiff No. 1 during his evidence has produced eight documents which are marked as Exhibits A, A1, A2, A3, B, C, D and E in support of its claim. Mr. Ratan Lal Jain, the Plaintiff No. 1, deposed that Exhibit Nos. A1, B1 and C1 mentioned in the Seizure List being Exhibit A mentions value of the betel nuts seized by the Customs Authorities having an aggregate value of Rs. 26,65,600/-. The witness referred to the adjudication order and stated that the value of the betel nuts seized by the Customs Authorities would be Rs. 47,95,200/- and not what was mentioned in the Seizure List. He further deposed that the said amount was calculated at t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wards the differential value of the goods as well as the return of the security deposit. The other claims are on account of interest, loss and damage and compensation. 5. The Hon'ble Division Bench while disposing of the appeal observed :- "However, it would be improper for the writ court or for us to direct the Customs Authority to pay the differential value without ascertaining the actual value of the goods."................ "We are, therefore, of the view that the learned single Judge should not have directed payment of the value by taking into account the valuation quote in the order of the adjudicating authority. We also do not find any discussion on the valuation made by the adjudicating authority as to how it could arrive at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ics Ltd. v. Collector of Customs and Central Excise), 2002 (140) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) (Shilps Impex v. Union of India) and an unreported decision of this Court in WP No. 951 of 2013 [Ahsan Waris v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) & Ors.] decided on 5th March, 2014 [2014 (305) E.L.T. 78 (Cal.)] and submitted that the plaintiff would be only entitled to get the price of the goods as declared and accepted in the seizure list by the department. This submission is made on the basis of ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions. In WP No. 951 of 2013 the learned Single Judge of this Court after considering some of the decisions cited today also held that the authorities concerned are bound to pay the value of the goods assessed at the time of sei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
