Appeal dismissed, department rightfully refunded sale proceeds of gold received in 2001. Appellant not entitled to gold.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, ruling that the department had properly refunded the sale proceeds of the gold as received in 2001. The appellant was not entitled to the gold or its market value as of 2015. The Tribunal found no fault in the order and upheld the compliance with statutory procedures for the disposal of the seized gold.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the confiscation and disposal of the seized gold.
2. Compliance with the statutory procedures for disposal of seized goods.
3. Entitlement of the appellant to the market value of the gold as of 2015.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Legality of the Confiscation and Disposal of the Seized Gold:
The gold was seized on 02.06.1999 from Shyam Lal Pal, who could not produce valid documents for its lawful possession. The department considered the gold as smuggled and seized it under Section 110 of the Customs Act, issuing a notice of confiscation under Section 111. The adjudicating authority confirmed the confiscation on 23.03.2000, and the order was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 31.08.2004. The Tribunal later directed the release of the gold to Shri Badri Narayan Sharma on 04.08.2015.

Compliance with the Statutory Procedures for Disposal of Seized Goods:
The department followed the procedure laid down in the Customs Preventive Manual for the disposal of the seized gold. The inventory of the seized goods was prepared and verified by the Additional Civil Judge, Bikaner. The gold was deposited in the Malkhana of New Customs House, New Delhi, and later handed over to the State Bank of India for disposal. The gold was sold by SBI on 26.03.2001 for Rs. 4,84,545. The Tribunal noted that the disposal was in compliance with statutory procedures and there was a presumption of correctness in the act of discharge of duty by competent officers, as held in the case of Ajanta Music Palace Vs. Collector of Customs.

Entitlement of the Appellant to the Market Value of the Gold as of 2015:
The appellant contended that the department did not follow the proper procedure for the disposal of the gold and sought either the return of the gold or its market value as of 2015. The department argued that the disposal was done in accordance with the statute and the sale proceeds were already released to the appellant. The Tribunal observed that the disposal was in compliance with statutory provisions and the appellant had failed to challenge the disposal during previous appeals. The Tribunal cited the case of Shabbir Ahmed Abdul Rehman Vs. Union of India, where it was held that the Customs Authority is liable to return the sale proceeds without deducting the duty. The Tribunal concluded that the department had duly complied with the order by refunding the sale proceeds received in 2001 and the appellant was not entitled to the market value of the gold as of 2015.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that the department had complied with the order by refunding the sale proceeds of the gold as received in 2001. The appellant was not entitled to the gold or its market value as of 2015, and there was no infirmity in the order under challenge.

---