9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 152X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alued at Rs. 21,68,100/- - thus, it is a clear case of disputed facts hence, writ petition is not maintainable, however, having regard to the fact that alleged incident relates back to of the year 1999 read with writ petition filed in the year 2005 and L.P.A. filed in the year 2011 and we are in the year, 2022, we thought that matter is warranted for giving quietus . The respondent - petitioner cannot have any assistance in terms of the aforesaid Sections for the reasons that he has not questioned the validity of the auction proceedings undertaken by the appellant Department. As long as respondent petitioner has not questioned the validity of the auction proceedings, he cannot contend that there is a violation of Section 14 and Section 150 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant - Department have made out a prima facie case so as to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge dated 25.01.2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2221 of 2005 and the fact that during pendency of the present lis , the respondent petitioner has been extended a sum of Rs. 8,59,125/- along with 10% interest - the respondent petitioner is entitled to refund of sum of Rs. 8,59,125/- in terms of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been approximately valued at Rs. 21,68,100/-. 4. Similarly, truck bearing registration number AS-25- 4308 was valued at Rs. 8,00,000/-. Such seizure of goods and truck of the respondent was subject matter of adjudication order no. 8/CC/ADJ/2000 dated 16.11.2000 by which the Commissioner of Customs passed the following order:- ORDER 1. I order for confiscation of betelnuts of third country origin weighing 21,681 Kgs. valued at Rs. 21,68,100/- seized in this case under Sec.111(d) of Customs Act, 1962 for the detailed reasons recorded above. 2. I order for confiscation of the truck bearing Regn. No. AS-25-4308 under Sec. 115 (2) of the Customs Act,1962 for the detailed reasons recorded above. However, I give the owner an option to redeem the said truck on payment of a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakhs) under Sec. 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. I also order that Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakhs) paid towards cash security deposited at the time of provisional release should be appropriated towards the fine so levied. 3. I impose the following persons/firms personal penalties on the under Sec.112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 for detailed reasons recorded ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and 3795 and it has been valued of Rs. 1,17,226/- (Annexure 3 series) is not legible documents (it is xerox copies). However, it is not in dispute that quantity is 297 bags, 22,275 kgs and value is Rs. 8,59,125/-. In other words, declaration read with the aforesaid Annexure - 3 series documents are tallying with each other. 8. In the light of these facts and circumstances, the department proceeded to auction the seized betel nut goods. It is stated that notice was issued however, it was not unserved. In the result, Department proceeded to auction the seized betel nut goods for a sum of Rs. 7,04,416/-. The same was paid in favour of the respondent on 16.02.2004. The respondent is stated to have accepted a sum of Rs. 7,04,416/- under protest on 03.03.2004 vide Annexure - 8 and sought for payment of difference of amount with reference to approximate value assigned by the seizing authority vide Annexure - 1. Appellant- Department did not acceded to the respondent s request. Hence, the respondent preferred CWJC No. 2221 of 2005 with the aforementioned prayer. 9. Learned Single Judge allowed CWJC No. 2221 of 2005 on 25.01.2011 in favour of the respondent herein. Learned Sing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f goods. 13. On the other hand, there are material information like declaration dated 13.01.1999 read with Annexure - 3 series documents suffice to hold that the petitioner is not entitled to difference of amount as claimed by him at the best he is entitled to Rs. 8,59,125/- instead of auctioned amount Rs. 7,04,416/-. It is further submitted that during pendency of the litigation department have paid total amount of Rs. 8,59,125/- along with 10% interest. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has committed error in holding that respondent is entitle to approximate value as mentioned in the seizure report. 14. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent resisted the aforesaid contentions and submitted that he had filed counter affidavit in which he has relied on the following decisions:- LPA 913 of 2003 decided on 25.10.2010, LPA 813 of 2011 decided on 31.08.2012, CWJC No. 10265 of 2011 decided on 02.03.2012, LPA 928 of 2012 decided on 20.07.2012 and, SLP No. 12157 of 2011 decided on 01.08.2011 (Union of India Ors. vs. Mahabir Prasad Sarawgi). 15. Learned counsel for the respondent distinguished the decisions cited on behalf of the appellant in particularly LPA No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 011. 19. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 20. Core issues involved in this lis are as under: a) Whether writ petition is maintainable or not? b) Whether respondent is entitled to refund of amount of sum of Rs. 8,59,125/- in terms of self declaration of respondent dated 13.01.1999 or, Rs. 21,68,100/- approximate value mentioned in the seizure report dated 22.01.1999 or, Rs. 7,04,416/- in terms of auction of goods amount dated 30.03.1999. c) Whether learned Single Judge erred in holding that respondent is entitled to refund of amount of the seized betel nut goods and its auctioned sum of Rs. 21,68,100/- in terms of seizure report wherein seizure authority assigned approximate value of the seized betel nut goods. d) The citation cited on behalf of the respondent assist his case in claiming of sum of Rs. 21,68,100/- or not? e) Whether respondent petitioner can take shelter under Section 150 and Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the purpose of claiming approximate value assigned in the seizure report or not? 21. Having regard to the relief sought by the respondent petitioner that he has prayed for writ of mandamus to the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods authority on 22.01.1999 and it is valued at Rs. 21,68,100/-. The other value of the seized betel nut goods is sum of Rs. 7,04,416/-, this is in terms of auction of seized goods and its realization amount. The appellant Department have restricted the refund at sum of Rs. 7,04,416/- on the other hand respondent is demanding refund of sum of Rs. 21,68,100/-. Therefore, it is a clear case of disputed facts hence, writ petition is not maintainable, however, having regard to the fact that alleged incident relates back to of the year 1999 read with writ petition filed in the year 2005 and L.P.A. filed in the year 2011 and we are in the year, 2022, we thought that matter is warranted for giving quietus . 24. Respondent petitioner cannot claim sum of Rs. 21,68,100/- in terms of the approximate value assigned by the seizure of the goods authority as the approximate value is not in terms of any material information. On the other hand, respondent petitioner has given declaration that seized goods is worth about a sum of Rs. 8,59,125/- vide declaration dated 13.01.1999. Even though seized betel nut goods were auctioned at Rs. 7,04,416/-. At the best respondent petitioner is en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the cited decisions are distinguishable and the same are not applicable to the case in hand for the reasons that in the cited decisions matter is not relating to self declaration, material like receipts and realization of auction goods and its amount. 27. Section 14 and Section 150 of the Customs Act, 1962 reads as under:- 14. Valuation of goods. - (1) For the purposes of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), or any other law for the time being in force, the value of the imported goods and export goods shall be the transaction value of such goods, that is to say, the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for export to India for delivery at the time and place of importation, or as the case may be, for export from India for delivery at the time and place of exportation, where the buyer and seller of the goods are not related and price is the sole consideration for the sale subject to such other conditions as may be specified in the rules made in this behalf : Provided that such transaction value in the case of imported goods shall include, in addition to the price as aforesaid, any amount paid or payable for costs and services, includi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 28. The respondent - petitioner cannot have any assistance in terms of the aforesaid Sections for the reasons that he has not questioned the validity of the auction proceedings undertaken by the appellant Department. As long as respondent petitioner has not questioned the validity of the auction proceedings, he cannot contend that there is a violation of Section 14 and Section 150 of the Customs Act, 1962. 29. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
