TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court scrutinizes seized goods release, orders deposit, stresses transparency.</h1> <h3>AMIT BHATIA Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUS., ICD, TUGHLAKABAD</h3> AMIT BHATIA Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUS., ICD, TUGHLAKABAD - 2010 (260) E.L.T. 411 (Del.) Issues:Challenge to communication for provisional release of seized goods, harsh conditions for release, sale of seized goods without notice, alleged mala fide action, violation of circular on disposal of goods, legality of sale to NCCF, prejudice caused to petitioner, petition rendered infructuous, relief sought, direction for amount recovered from sale, lack of coordination by respondents.Analysis:The writ petition challenged a communication from the Commissioner of Customs regarding the provisional release of heavy-duty AA pencil batteries seized from the petitioner. The conditions for release included depositing anti-dumping duty, a bond, and a bank guarantee. The petitioner argued that the conditions were harsh and sought unconditional release or payment of a reduced duty amount. The court issued notice in May 2008, but the respondents filed a reply only in February 2009, leading to delays in the case.During the proceedings, it was revealed that the seized goods had been sold without notice to the petitioner. The petitioner filed an application under the Right to Information Act, seeking details of the sale. The court was not satisfied with the response from the respondents regarding the sale and directed further explanations. The court found discrepancies in the handling of the case and ordered the Assistant Commissioner to provide additional information and appear in court.The sale of the seized goods was defended by the respondents, stating that it was done following a circular and sold to a government-controlled organization. The court considered the petitioner's objections to the sale procedure and the alleged violation of the circular on disposal of goods. The court analyzed the potential prejudice caused to the petitioner and concluded that the sale did not significantly harm the petitioner's interests.Subsequent developments in the case rendered the petition infructuous, and the court directed the amount recovered from the sale to be kept in a fixed deposit pending final orders. The court observed a lack of coordination among the respondents and emphasized the need for better communication within the department. The petition and pending applications were disposed of with no costs awarded.In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues related to the provisional release of seized goods, the sale of goods without notice, alleged mala fide actions, compliance with circulars on disposal, and the coordination within the department. The court provided directions regarding the amount recovered from the sale and emphasized the importance of transparency and coordination in such matters for future cases.
TaxTMI 