Customs Ordered to Respond to Seized Rubber Refund Request Within 45 Days, Ensure Timely Resolution.

The HC disposed of the writ petition by directing the Assistant Commissioner of Customs to address the petitioner's representation dated 21.8.2015 within 45 days of receiving the court's order. The court emphasized the necessity for a reasoned order to be promptly communicated to the petitioner. This decision aimed to resolve the petitioner's grievance concerning the non-response to their refund request for the seized rubber, ensuring a timely and effective resolution.

---

---

Issues Involved:
Seizure of raw rubber, confiscation order, penalty imposition, appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), refund representation, non-response to representation.

Seizure of Raw Rubber:
The petitioner's raw rubber was seized by the respondent-authorities on 24.5.2012, weighing 2840.870 kgs with a market value of Rs. 5,68,174/-. Despite the petitioner's explanation, the adjudicating authority directed for the absolute confiscation of the seized rubber and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10 lac.

Appeal and Relief:
The petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the confiscation order. The Commissioner (Appeals), through an order dated 7.1.2015, set aside the order of confiscation dated 28.3.2013 and provided consequential relief to the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner sought a refund of the seized rubber or its market value based on the appellate order.

Non-Response to Representation:
Although the petitioner made a representation for the refund of the entire value of the seized rubber, amounting to Rs. 5,68,174/-, the Commissioner only sanctioned a refund of Rs. 1.55 lac. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved by this response, submitted a fresh representation dated 21.8.2015, expressing dissatisfaction with the authorities' lack of response.

Judgment and Direction:
After hearing the arguments from both parties, the High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the Assistant Commissioner of Customs to decide the petitioner's representation dated 21.8.2015 within 45 days from the receipt of the court's order. The court emphasized the need for a reasoned order to be communicated to the petitioner promptly.

Conclusion:
The High Court's judgment focused on addressing the petitioner's grievance regarding the non-response to their representation for a refund of the seized rubber. By providing a clear direction to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, the court aimed to ensure a timely and reasoned decision on the petitioner's request, thereby resolving the issue at hand effectively.

---