9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (2) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ), Gujarat. 3.The facts leading to the present petition are as follows : On 8-10-1994 some Customs Officers seized a parcel from M/s. Om Air Gargo Enterprises, Sarangpur, Ahmedabad belonging to the petitioner. The parcel contained consumer goods of foreign origin. The goods consisted of cosmetic items such as Shampoo, Spray and Shave Cream and electronic articles, such as cassette, flash light, electronic calculators, casio TV and cameras. There was no dispute that the goods were of foreign origin, but the petitioner's explanation was that they were brought by him through a relative named Joitaram from Madras, whose address he did not know, but whose telephone number he gave as 567511. He expressed his inability to produce any document ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner was dealing in the sale of foreign goods and had produced receipts through sources known to him which he kept back at the initial stage when he gave telephone number of a fictitious person, ostensibly to mislead the authorities so that they cannot reach the source of the goods. He came to the conclusion that although the goods are neither notified nor falling under Section 123, they had not been bona fide acquired by the petitioner in a lawful way, but were part of clandestine activity to bring in goods of foreign origin without payment of duty and dispose of them through persons like the petitioner. He, therefore, came to the conclusion that the goods were liable to confiscation and, by his order dated 23-3-1995, ordered confiscat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. The Department did prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, but the Tribunal by the order dated 7-8-1996 dismissed the same at admission stage holding that there was no case for interference with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 7.In the meantime on 26-12-1995, the petitioner, through his Advocate, addressed a notice to the Additional Commissioner, Customs (Preventive), Ahmedabad drawing his attention to the said order dated 22-11-1995 passed by the appellate authority and called upon him to release the goods in compliance with the said order within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice. Since there was no response from the authority concerned, the petitioner filed the present petition on 15-2-1996 seeking releas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmitted that though the value of the goods was shown to be Rs. 60,420/- in the order of confiscation, it reflected only the Panchnama-value and represents an approximation but the value assessed by the Local Pricing Committee was on the basis of authentic date. 8.In view of the said affidavit, petitioner's Advocate sought amendment of the petition, praying for a direction to the respondent-authorities to pay to the petitioner the sale proceeds of the goods. 9.On 5-12-1996, the petition was admitted and in view of the said affidavit filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), the department was directed to pay the price of the goods actually realised by them after paying discount to National Consumer Co-op. Federation by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refused unconditional release of electronic calculators and allowed their redemption on payment of Rs. 15,000/- and a penalty of Rs. 4,000/- was erroneous in law. 13.The learned Advocate for the respondents ought to justify the disposal and sale of the goods on the grounds stated in the affidavit-in-reply of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Preventive). 14.Now, so far as the order of the appellate authority, did not allow unconditional release of electronic calculators, the petitioner did not challenge the same by preferring any appeal to the appellate Tribunal or revision application to the Central Government. The respondent-authorities had challenged the said order by filing an appeal to the appellate Tribunal, but the same has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt-authorities are bound to make payment of compensation, if they are unable to return the goods which were ordered to be released. However, the value of the goods is disputed and such a disputed question of fact cannot be decided in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We, therefore, would leave the petitioner to such other remedy as may be available to him either under the Customs Act, if any, or by filing a civil suit for recovering compensation for the failure of the respondent-authorities to return the goods which were ordered to be released. It would be open to the petitioner to accept the payment of the amount offered by the Assistant Commissioner, Customs, Ahmedabad by his order dated 14-3-1997 and take appro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
