9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 1092X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated value stated in the order of seizure is also a determined value of the goods at the time of its seizure. As it is the petitioner who had procured the goods which were seized and confiscated and later on put up on auction, he would be the best person to have the knowledge about the actual value of the goods as it may have been. The same would also be in conformity with provision of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. But as a dispute has been raised by the petitioner that he is entitled to the value of the goods as it stood on the date of seizure, the basic material to adjudicate the said issue would be what would be the value as may be determined as on the date when the goods were seized. In the absence of such material being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in a confiscation under Section 105 of the Act of 1962 as per the order dated 28.03.2013 of the Additional Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Shillong. Upon the seized goods being confiscated, they were subjected to an auction on 30.10.2014 and in the auction, the seized goods fetched a price of Rs. 1,45,000/-. Later on the seizure as well as the confiscation was set aside by the order dated 29.12.2014 in Order-in-appeal No. 76/CUS(A)/GHY/14 of the Commissioner (Appeal), Customs and Central Excise, Guwahati. 3. In the resultant circumstance, the petitioner claimed for a refund of the value of the goods that were seized and confiscated. The respondents in the Customs Department had offered the petitioner an amount of Rs. 1,55,000/- which in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat by the said representation, the petitioner had asked for refund of the seizure value of the goods instead of the auction sale proceeds of the goods which were seized. The Deputy Commissioner also took note of the aspect that after the seizure and confiscation of the goods inasmuch as, the seized goods were of perishable nature, the Department initiated a disposal of the goods through public auction. It was specifically taken note of that the writ petitioner Rintu Bastian was intimated about the auction by letter C.No. VIII(25)1/DISP/MISC/ACG/2012/5202 dated 10.09.2014 by the Superintendent (Disposal), Guwahati Customs Division, Guwahati and that the writ petitioner had received the letter on 18.09.2014 and thereafter on 30.10.2014, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. 6. Mr. D. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously relies upon the order of seizure dated 24.05.2012 where the estimated value of the goods is stated to be Rs. 5,68,174/- @ Rs. 200/- per kg and claims that the estimated value stated therein itself is the determined value of the goods. Accordingly, reliance is placed upon a pronouncement of the Hon ble Supreme Court rendered in Northern Plastics Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs and Central Excise, reported in (2000) 1 SCC 545, wherein in paragraph 9 thereof it was held that the consequence of setting aside the order of confiscation on the ground that it was illegal, entitles the person concerned to the value of the goods as on the date or time when the goods ought to have been c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat upon the confiscation of the goods being set aside by the competent authority, the owner of the goods would be entitled to a refund of the value of the goods and that the owner would be entitled to a refund on the value of the goods as on the date they were seized. 9. Be that as it may, even if we accept the submission of Mr. D. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner would be entitled to a refund of the value of the goods as it stood on the date of the seizure, further material would be required before the Court as to what was the value of the goods on the date it was seized and the only reference is made to the estimated value of the goods as mentioned in the order of seizure. 10. On the other hand, Mr. S.C. Keyal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Customs Department as regards the valuation of the goods and we are clarifying that the liberty to challenge the auction would be confined to a challenge to the value of the goods as determined in the auction. Upon such challenge if any order acceptable in law is made by the respondents in the Customs Department on the valuation of the goods, further liberty would remain to the petitioner to approach again on the issue as to whether petitioner would be entitled to a refund on the value of the goods as it stood on the day it was seized or the value of the goods as determined by the auction itself would attain its finality. 13. Writ petition stands disposed of as indicated above. 14. The records produced by Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned counsel for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
