2009 (9) TMI 698 - HC - Customs

Court orders refund to non-resident Indian under Transfer of Residence Rules, emphasizing fairness and citizen rights.

PP. SURESH Versus ASSISTANT COMMR. OF CUS. (REFUND), COCHIN

The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, a non-resident Indian, in a case involving the import of used household articles under Transfer of Residence ... Refund - Confiscation of goods – non-resident Indian imported used household articles under the Transfer of Residence Rules - redemption fine of Rs. 1,40,000/- in lieu of confiscation. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 60,000/- on the petitioner - petitioner remitted the said sum of Rs. 2,00,000 – Held that:- Petitioner’s liability to pay redemption fine and penalty stands limited to the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 - petitioner is entitled to refund of the excess sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- paid by him as redemption fine and penalty Issues:Import of used household articles in commercial quantities under Transfer of Residence Rules; Confiscation of goods; Reduction of redemption fine and penalty through appeals and revision; Claim for refund; Technical grounds raised by respondent; Duty of respondent to inform about refund rights; Compliance with superior authorities' orders; Entitlement to refund of excess amount paid.Analysis:The petitioner, a non-resident Indian, imported used household articles under the Transfer of Residence Rules upon returning home in 2006. The Assistant Commissioner confiscated the goods, alleging commercial importation, and imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 1,40,000 along with a penalty of Rs. 60,000. After appeals, the redemption fine was reduced to Rs. 1,00,000, and the penalty remained at Rs. 60,000. The petitioner sought a refund of the excess Rs. 40,000 paid, leading to a revision by the Government of India, which further reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 70,000 and the penalty to Rs. 30,000. The petitioner then requested a refund of the excess Rs. 1,00,000 paid, which was not granted, prompting the filing of a writ petition for mandamus to refund the sum.The respondent raised technical grounds, including the claim being time-barred, but did not contest the reduction of the redemption fine and penalty. The court noted that the respondent, as a Government officer, had a duty to inform the petitioner about the right to claim a refund without waiting for a formal request. Emphasizing the need for fairness in dealings with citizens, the court held that the petitioner's liability was limited to Rs. 1,00,000 as fixed by the Government of India in revision. The court dismissed the technical objections, stating that failure to refund would lead to unjust enrichment and undermine the effectiveness of appellate and revisional remedies, ultimately ruling in favor of the petitioner's entitlement to the refund.In the final decision, the court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondent to refund the petitioner the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 within two weeks of producing a certified copy of the judgment.