1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Court orders respondents to review petitioner's representations on balance amount for seized goods within four weeks.</h1> The court directed the respondents to review the petitioner's representations and reminders and make a decision within four weeks regarding the balance ... Seizure of goods - After order of release of goods instead of refund the goods or paying the value in full revenue refunded only the partial amount - Held that:- In order to give quietus to the issue, without going into the merits of the claim made by the petitioner, the respondents are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 19.03.2004 followed by reminders dated 07.04.2004 and 21.04.2004 issued through his lawyer and pass appropriate orders on the same on merits and in accordance with law within a period four weeks - Appeal disposed of. Issues:1. Writ of mandamus to recover balance amount from seized goods auctioned by customs authority.Analysis:The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents to pay the balance amount of Rs. 4,36,676 out of Rs. 11,65,000, representing the value of goods seized from his son and auctioned by the authorities. The petitioner's son was intercepted at the Chennai airport with 215 cellular phones, alleged to be smuggled goods. Despite the petitioner's explanations, the goods were seized. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued under the Customs Act, leading to an order by the Additional Commissioner of Customs stating that the goods were not liable for confiscation, and no penalties were imposed.The petitioner claimed that after the favorable decision, he was informed that the goods had been disposed of, and he was paid only a portion of the value. Despite multiple attempts to claim the balance amount, the petitioner received no response. The petitioner contended that the goods were sold without notice, and he was entitled to the refund of the price difference. The respondents argued that the goods were sold at the prevailing value, a claim disputed by the petitioner.The court, without delving into the merits of the claim, directed the respondents to review the petitioner's representations and reminders issued through his lawyer and make a decision within four weeks. The judgment aimed to resolve the issue and provide closure to the petitioner's grievance without awarding any costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
