Refund of confiscated goods value requires proof of seizure-date valuation and challenge to auction valuation before relief can follow.

Where confiscated goods are later sold by auction, a refund claim based on the seizure-date value requires material proving that value, and the auction valuation should first be assailed if refund is sought on that basis. The Gauhati HC noted the general principle that unlawful seizure and confiscation may justify refund at the value on the date of seizure, but found the record insufficient to establish that the seizure memo's estimated figure was the actual value. Because the goods had already been auctioned and the auction process remained unchallenged, the refund question could not be decided on the existing record, with the petitioner bearing the evidentiary burden to produce relevant value evidence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner could be granted refund on the basis of the alleged seizure value of the confiscated goods without material establishing that value and without first assailing the auction valuation.

Analysis: The claim arose after seizure and confiscation of raw rubber were set aside, and the petitioner sought refund of the seizure value instead of the auction proceeds. The general principle was noted that, where seizure and confiscation are held illegal, refund may relate to the value of the goods as on the date of seizure. However, the Court found that the present record did not establish the seizure memo's estimated value as the determined value of the goods on the date of seizure. The goods had already been sold by public auction, the auction process had not been challenged, and no sufficient material was placed to adjudicate the actual seizure-date value. The Court also noted that, having procured the goods, the petitioner would be the person best placed to produce relevant evidence of value, consistent with Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Conclusion: The petitioner's refund claim could not be adjudicated on the existing record, and no finding was returned that the petitioner was entitled to refund of the seizure value over the auction value.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to challenge the auction valuation and, depending on the result of such challenge, to pursue the question of the amount refundable.

---