Writ petition dismissed due to loss responsibility, highlighting need for civil suit over writ relief.

The court dismissed the writ petition, finding the petitioner responsible for the loss of seized goods and emphasizing the need for pursuing a civil suit for compensation instead of seeking relief through a writ petition. The court highlighted the importance of timely action and proper legal procedures, noting that the claim was time-barred and that the petitioner had suppressed facts about the missing goods during the appeal process.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Order-in-Original No.12417/2010.
2. Entitlement of the petitioner to compensation for the loss of imported scrap.
3. Responsibility for the loss of seized goods.
4. Jurisdiction of the writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Order-in-Original No.12417/2010:
The petitioner challenged the Order-in-Original No.12417/2010 dated 15.07.2010, which was passed following directions from the High Court in W.P.No.26948 of 2008. The petitioner had previously appealed against the confiscation order (Order-in-Original No.2119/2004) before the CESTAT, which set aside the order. However, the petitioner later discovered that the confiscated goods were missing and sought compensation.

2. Entitlement of the Petitioner to Compensation for the Loss of Imported Scrap:
The petitioner claimed compensation for the loss of 297.06 metric tonnes of scrap, arguing that as per Section 126 of the Customs Act, 1962, the seized goods vested with the Central Government upon confiscation, and thus, the petitioner should not be liable for the theft. The petitioner cited the Bombay High Court decision in Giridharlal Kalyandas Advani Vs. Union of India, which held that the government must compensate for lost seized goods if they are not returned post-adjudication.

3. Responsibility for the Loss of Seized Goods:
The respondent argued that the petitioner was the custodian of the seized goods, and the loss could not have occurred on a single date. The petitioner was responsible for the safe keeping of the goods, which were under their control. The court noted that the petitioner had suppressed facts about the missing goods during the appeal before the CESTAT and had not informed the tribunal about the loss of 297.06 metric tonnes out of the 453 metric tonnes of seized scrap.

4. Jurisdiction of the Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:
The court emphasized that a writ court under Article 226 cannot be converted into a civil court to determine disputed facts and award compensation. The petitioner should have filed a civil suit to claim compensation, which requires a proper trial and recording of evidence. The court also noted that the claim was time-barred, as the alleged loss occurred in 2005, and the petitioner failed to file a suit within the limitation period prescribed by the Limitation Act.

Conclusion:
The court found no merit in the writ petition, holding that the petitioner was responsible for the loss of the seized goods, which were under their control. The court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that the petitioner should have pursued a civil suit for compensation rather than seeking relief through a writ petition. The court also highlighted the importance of timely action and proper legal procedures in such cases.

---