Disposal of confiscated goods during a pending appeal may trigger an explanation and possible compensation under procedural rules.

A confiscated revolver, which remained the subject of a pending appeal, was reported to have been alienated by the Commissioner before the appeal was finally decided. The Tribunal treated this as conduct requiring explanation because the Commissioner was the respondent and could not plausibly be unaware of the pending proceedings. It also considered whether compensation could be ordered under the procedural rules for disposal of the disputed goods during appeal. The Commissioner of Customs was directed to file an affidavit showing cause for the alienation and explaining why the applicant should not be compensated under Rules 40 and 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner could dispose of the confiscated revolver during the pendency of the appeal and whether an explanation and compensation were warranted.

Analysis: The revolver was the subject-matter of the pending appeal, yet it was found to have been alienated by the respondent-Commissioner before the appeal was finally dealt with. The Tribunal treated this as conduct requiring explanation, particularly because the Commissioner was the respondent in the appeal and could not claim ignorance of the pending proceedings. In view of the apparent disposal of the disputed goods, the Tribunal considered the possibility of compensation under the procedural rules.

Conclusion: The Commissioner of Customs was directed to file an affidavit showing cause why the revolver was alienated during the pendency of the appeal and why the applicant should not be compensated under Rules 40 and 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.

---