9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (3) TMI 702X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a truck was intercepted by the Customs Officers and it was found to be carrying 251 gunny bags of betel nuts having gross weight of 17821 kgs. and net weight of 17068 kgs., whereafter on demand the driver of the truck produced delivery challans along with other relevant transport documents. However, the officers entertained a belief that the value of the betel nuts, shown in the delivery challans, was on the lower side and hence they took opinion of two local traders, who suggested that the betel nuts were of foreign origin and on that basis the said betel nuts and the truck were seized and at the time of seizure it was valued at Rs.21,33,500 and a proceeding bearing Customs Case No. 07/1999 was initiated against the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that subsequently a show cause notice dated 03.11.199 was issued under section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act for the sake of brevity) by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Farbisganj Division, answerable to the Commissioner of Customs, in which the petitioner was noticee no.3 along with other persons, who were transporters and traders. In the said show cause notices ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the release of the articles was not possible merely because the said tax case was pending in the High Court since 2002, whereas, the refund of amount could not be made because the file in question was not traceable. It was also claimed by learned counsel for the respondents that the Commissioner of Customs, while passing his order dated 08.05.2003, was not aware of the fact whether goods were already sold and inspite of the said order the petitioner did not approach the authority with security, hence the petitioner did not abide by that order and for the first time he filed this writ petition in the year 2011 although there was no occasion for the petitioner to sit over the matter for eight years after the order of the Commissioner dated 08.05.2003. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents also averred that the concerned file was not traceable in the department and the authorities took steps for reconstruction of the file only after the filing of this writ petition and it was only then found that the betel nuts were sold for Rs.3,64,000.00, but the date and papers of sale of goods could not be ascertained from the records. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents also stated tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, which necessitated legal action against them. 12. From the aforesaid facts and materials on record, it cannot be disputed that according to the seizure list prepared at the time of seizure of the betel nuts by the authorities, its value was given by the authorities themselves as Rs.21,33,500.00. Similarly, in the confiscation notices sent to the noticees including the petitioner, the value of the seized betel nuts was shown to be the same. The said confiscation proceeding culminated into the order of absolute confiscation dated 24.03.2001 and in the said order also, the value of the confiscated betel nuts was given as Rs.21,33,500.00. Furthermore, even in the appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order of confiscation, no claim was raised by the respondents therein that the value of the confiscated betel nuts was less than Rs.21,33,500.00. Similarly, in the tax case filed by the respondents before the High Court against the appellate order, it was nowhere claimed that the value of the confiscated betel nuts was not Rs.21,33,500.00 and the said tax case was dismissed by a Bench of this Court on 08.09.2006. In the meantime also, the Commissioner, Customs, Patna a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... them to the petitioner, specially when the said appellate order was never stayed by the High Court in Tax Case No. 26/2002, which was filed by the Customs Department against the aforesaid order of the CEGAT dated 30.08.2001. 15. In any view of the matter, a procedure is prescribed under the Act, which also provides a notice to the persons concerned before such sale of the confiscated goods, which is mandatory in nature. Furthermore, after the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, the goods in question did not remain confiscated goods and hence there was no occasion for its sale by the authorities. Thus, it is clear that for some nefarious intention of jeopardizing the claim of the petitioner and for personal aggrandizement of the officers concerned, the betel nuts in question were sold in a haste post haste manner by some officers of the department, who some how got the entire file vanished to conceal their illegal acts and save their skins from any future action. 16. It may be noted that the Appellate Tribunal, while allowing the petitioner s appeal by order dated 30.08.2001, specifically held that the adjudicating authorities had wrongly proceeded to hold that the betel n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
