2014 (8) TMI 1114 - HC - Customs

Court rules in favor of plaintiff for return of seized betel nuts, emphasizing need for accurate assessment.

Ratan Lal Jain Versus Union of India

The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff in a case concerning the specific return of seized betel nuts or a monetary decree. Despite the defendants' ... Doctrine of non-traverse - evidence - seizure of Betel-Nuts - - Held that: - On the basis of the evidence, it appears that the aggregate value of the goods at the time of seizure could not have been more than ₹ 26,65,600/-. The Seizure List was prepared on 7th February, 1999. The order of adjudication in favour of the plaintiff was passed on 16th December, 1999. The Adjudicating Authority directed unconditional release of 33320 kgs. of betel nuts valued at ₹ 47,95,200/- in favour of the plaintiffs and in case the goods have already been sold by auction, the sale proceeds thereof would be refunded to the rightful claimants. The order of adjudication does not disclose the basis of the valuation of the seized articles and from the order itself, the valuation of the betel nuts at ₹ 47,95,200/- is not discernible. After the seizure is declared to be illegal by the adjudicating authority in absence of any rebuttable evidence and contrary evidence to dislodge the testimony of the witness, I feel that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for a sum of ₹ 26,65,600/- and accordingly a decree is passed for the aforesaid sums. However, during the pendency of the proceeding the plaintiff has received a sum of ₹ 12,31,200/- on January 18, 2001. The plaintiff shall be entitled to payment of interest at the rate of 8% per annum on and from 1st January, 2000 till December, 2000 on ₹ 26,65,600/- and thereafter on the remaining balance at the same rate of 8% per annum till realization - decided in favor of plaintiff. Issues:1. Suit for specific return of seized betel nuts and alternative claim for a monetary decree.2. Failure of defendants to enter appearance and file written statement.3. Claim of illegal seizure, subsequent sale by Customs Authorities, and entitlement to unconditional release of betel nuts.4. Discrepancy in valuation of seized goods and claim for differential amount.5. Reference to judgment by Hon'ble Division Bench and evidence produced in support of the claim.6. Observations by Hon'ble Division Bench regarding valuation of goods and requirement for establishment of actual value.7. Reliance on legal precedents by plaintiff's counsel and entitlement to value of goods assessed at the time of seizure.8. Decree passed for the sum of the assessed value of betel nuts, interest, and payment terms.Analysis:1. The plaintiff filed a suit for the specific return of 33320 kgs of betel nuts seized by Customs Authorities or, alternatively, a monetary decree. Despite defendants' failure to appear, the plaintiff presented evidence supporting the claim, citing illegal seizure and subsequent sale of the goods. The plaintiff contended that the confiscation was deemed illegal by the Commissioner of Customs, entitling them to the unconditional release of the betel nuts valued at a specific amount.2. The plaintiff claimed that the seized goods should not have been sold until the adjudication proceedings concluded, emphasizing the illegality of Customs Authorities' auction. The plaintiff sought the return of the goods and a refund of the differential amount, supported by evidence and referencing a previous judgment by the Division Bench. The plaintiff's evidence included various documents and testimonies regarding the valuation and purchase price of the betel nuts.3. The Division Bench emphasized the need to ascertain the actual value of the goods before directing payment of the differential value. The court noted that the valuation in the adjudication order was not adequately explained, requiring the plaintiff to establish the value as of a specific date. Despite the defendants' absence, the court considered the observations of the Division Bench and concluded that the plaintiff needed to prove the value of the betel nuts as of a particular date.4. The plaintiff's counsel relied on legal precedents to argue that the plaintiff was entitled to the value of the goods assessed at the time of seizure, not the value obtained from the sale. Citing previous judgments, the court agreed with the plaintiff's position and passed a decree for the assessed value of the betel nuts. The court also awarded interest on the amount and specified the payment terms, considering a partial payment received by the plaintiff during the proceedings.5. The court decreed in favor of the plaintiff, entitling them to the assessed value of the betel nuts, interest, and outlining the payment terms. The decree was to be expedited for implementation promptly.