Private company entitled to 50% value of seized goods, Respondent must refund with interest. Order for disposal.

The Court held that the Petitioner, a private limited company, was entitled to 50% of the determined value of goods seized by the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence. The Respondent was directed to refund this amount within one month, with interest at 9% applicable for delays. The Court also ordered the Respondent to remove or dispose of the goods within a month; otherwise, the Petitioner could handle the disposal. The judgment aimed to balance the responsibilities of both parties in the loss of goods, providing compensation and a disposal mechanism.

---

---

Issues:
Petitioner seeking disposal of seized goods and payment for expired goods due to seizure.

Analysis:
1. The Petitioner, a private limited company, filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to seek the disposal of seized goods and payment for expired goods due to seizure. The Petitioner, engaged in manufacturing insecticides, had stock worth MRP Rs. 3.60 Crore seized by the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI) in 2015. Despite repeated requests for release, the goods expired as the season for sale passed during the seizure period. The Petitioner shifted the goods to its factory to avoid rent, where they remain unsold. The Petitioner sought compensation for the loss of goods, citing a previous judgment supporting their claim.

2. The Respondent contended that there was no delay in releasing the goods, as an order for provisional release was issued in April 2016. The Respondent argued that the Petitioner did not take necessary steps to sell the goods even after modification of release conditions by the court. A show cause notice for confiscation was also pending before the Adjudicating Authority. The Respondent denied responsibility for the loss of goods and emphasized the pending legal proceedings.

3. The Court examined the facts and found that the seized insecticides had a shelf life with an expiry date. The goods were seized in November 2015, and a provisional release order was issued in April 2016, after a delay of five months. The Court acknowledged that the goods had become unfit for sale and referred to previous judgments stating that a Petitioner, subject to liability for confiscation, is entitled to payment for the value of goods. The Court found that both the Petitioner and Respondent shared responsibility for the loss of goods.

4. The Court determined that the Petitioner should have sold the goods upon receiving the provisional release order. It held that both parties must equally bear the loss of the goods. The Court noted that a Show Cause Notice for confiscation was issued, and the determination of liabilities must precede the payment for the value of goods. The value of the goods in question was calculated at 70% of Rs. 3.2 Crore after granting a 30% abatement.

5. Consequently, the Court held that the Petitioner was entitled to 50% of the determined value of goods lying in their factory premises. The Respondent was directed to refund this amount within one month, failing which interest at 9% would be applicable. The Court also ordered the Respondent to remove or dispose of the goods within a month; failure to do so would allow the Petitioner to handle the disposal as they see fit.

6. The judgment concluded by granting relief to the Petitioner in the specified terms, balancing the responsibilities of both parties in the loss of goods and providing a mechanism for compensation and disposal of the seized goods.

---