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 orders customs to pay petitioner sale proceeds after procedural irregularities</h1> <h3>SHABIR AHMED ABDUL REHMAN Versus UNION OF INDIA</h3> SHABIR AHMED ABDUL REHMAN Versus UNION OF INDIA - 2009 (235) E.L.T. 402 (Bom.) Issues:1. Whether customs authorities could sell confiscated gold during the pendency of an appeal.2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to redemption of the confiscated gold and the return of sale proceeds after deducting customs duty.Analysis:Issue 1:The petitioner was apprehended carrying gold bars and they were seized under the belief of being liable for confiscation. After the investigation, an order was issued confiscating the gold bars and imposing a penalty. The petitioner appealed this decision, and the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) directed reshipment of the gold subject to a fine. The Government of India later held that the petitioner could redeem the gold subject to payment of duty, fine, and penalty. The petitioner challenged this order, arguing that the customs authorities should not have disposed of the gold during the appeal, citing relevant legal precedents. The respondents justified the disposal based on a specific notification. The court found the disposal during the appeal improper, as per departmental instructions, and ruled against the revenue's argument.Issue 2:The court considered whether the petitioner could claim the market value of the gold or the sale proceeds after deducting duty, fine, and penalty. The petitioner's claim for the market value was rejected due to falling gold prices. As the petitioner sought redemption, payment of duty was contingent on actual redemption. Since only sale proceeds were offered, duty payment did not apply. The revenue's argument of readiness to pay the balance amount was dismissed for lack of evidence and delay in raising the contention. The court held the customs authorities liable to return the entire sale proceeds after deducting the fine and penalty, with interest. A specific amount was directed to be paid to the petitioner with interest, based on the revisional order.In conclusion, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing the customs authorities to pay the balance sale proceeds after deducting the fine and penalty, with interest. The judgment highlighted procedural irregularities in disposing of confiscated goods during an appeal and clarified the petitioner's entitlement to the sale proceeds without duty deduction.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
