9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (12) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er held that the goods were hard disk drives and not software loaded on hard disk drivers whereupon a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner demanding additional duty of Rs. 24,00,933/-. The petitioner replied to the said show cause notice. The goods were specified as software in terms of Chapter 8471.93 read with Notification No. 59/95, dated 16th March, 1995 attracting Customs duty @ 25%. Against the said order the petitioner preferred an appeal before the CEGAT which was marked as Appeal No. 161/96/B2 [2000 (116) E.L.T. 268 (Tri.)]. The appeal was dismissed by an order, dated 14-2-1999. The goods in question, in the meantime, were handed over to International Airport Authority. It appears that said goods were put to auction on 24 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a communication was received by the petitioner on 15-11-2000 from Respondent No. 2 that the goods had been sold in auction on 24-4-1998. In the aforementioned situation this writ petition was filed. Submission : 5.Learned Counsel for the petitioner would urge that the first respondent was primarily responsible for return of the seized goods. In support of the said proposition the petitioner has placed reliance on Ashok Dhawan v. UOI - 1990 (47) E.L.T. 218, Singhal Paints v. Collector of C.Ex., Allahabad and 1999 (106) E.L.T. 16. The value of the goods, according to the learned Counsel should be assessed in July, 1995 which would be to the tune of Rs. 65 lakhs. 6.Mr. Sood, learned Addl. Solicitor General, however, would submit that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficer. Airport Authority sought for permission to put the goods on auction. Such clearance was received from the proper officer only on 22-4-2000. Disposal of unclaimed/uncleared cargo is the subject matter of a circular letter dated 11th February, 1998, which inter alia, states as under : The"4. imported goods lying uncleared may be classified into two categories viz. (a) goods confiscated under the Customs Act, 1962 and (b) goods not confiscated but lying uncleared/unclaimed. For the goods of category (a) it is the responsibility of the Customs Department to get them disposed of through the disposal units of the Department. The custodian will fully undertake disposal of goods falling under category (b). Every month the custodian shall p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondents herein did not give a prompt reply that the goods have already been sold. It did so only upon receipt of a legal notice. It has not been and could not be disputed that the petitioner is entitled to the value of the goods. It is not a case where the principle of res ipsa loquitor can be applied, as regards the loss of goods while in the custody of International Airport Authority as was the case in International Airport Authority of India v. Ashok Dhawan - 1999 (106) E.L.T. 16. 11.The Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent did not dispute that the petitioner is entitled to value of the goods which would be as in July, 1995 i.e. Rs. 65 lakhs. 12.The question only is, who is liable therefor ? Learned Addl. Solicitor Gener ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
