2014 (11) TMI 1113 - HC - Customs

Customs Department directed to pay petitioner differential amount for seized goods, court affirms entitlement to declared value.

The High Court allowed the condonation of delay in appealing and upheld the direction for the Customs Department to pay the petitioner the differential ... Sale of confiscated goods - Section 126 of the CA, 1962 - whether or not the sale was made contrary to the provisions or without any reasonable explanation was not gone into? - Held that: - the goods were sold in the time after the order of Commissioner (Appeals) but before expiry of the statutory period within which appeal could be preferred therefrom to the Tribunal by the petitioner as recorded in the impugned order - The direction in the impugned order stands confirmed to be complied with by the appellant within 12 weeks - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. Issues involved:1. Condonation of delay in preferring the appeal.2. Direction to pay the differential amount between assessed value and refunded sum.3. Authority to sell confiscated goods and entitlement of petitioner to sale proceeds.4. Correctness of the direction for differential payment.5. Compliance with judgments referred by the Single Judge.6. Entitlement of petitioner to declared value of goods sold.7. Timing of goods sale in relation to appeal period.8. Confirmation of the Single Judge's order and compliance directions.Analysis:1. The judgment begins with the High Court considering an application for the condonation of delay in preferring the appeal, which is allowed after finding the causes shown sufficient.2. The appeal by the Customs Department challenges an order directing the payment of the differential amount between the assessed value of seized goods and the refunded sum. The Customs Authorities argue that as per the Customs Act, after confiscation, perishable goods become the property of the Central Government and were sold at a specific price, which was refunded to the petitioner. They contend that applying depreciation, the petitioner is entitled to the sale proceeds upon setting aside the confiscation order.3. The court notes that the question of whether the sale was contrary to provisions was not addressed in the impugned order. The only issue is whether the Single Judge was correct in directing the differential payment.4. The court finds that the Single Judge's decision is supported by previous judgments from other High Courts and the Supreme Court, which the appellant failed to contradict. The decisions establish that the petitioner is entitled to the differential amount based on the declared value of the goods.5. Another Supreme Court decision is cited, supporting the entitlement of the applicant to the declared value of goods sold under similar circumstances. The court upholds the Single Judge's reliance on these decisions.6. It is highlighted that the goods were sold after the order of the Commissioner but before the expiry of the appeal period to the Tribunal, as noted in the impugned order.7. Ultimately, the court finds no reason to interfere with the Single Judge's order, confirming the direction for the differential payment and setting a compliance timeline for the appellant. The appeal is dismissed, and parties are directed to comply with the order within the specified timeframe.