Petitioner receives proper compensation for confiscated gold under Customs Instruction No. 22/2022 based on market prices

The Delhi HC disposed of a petition concerning additional compensation for confiscated gold weighing 755.50 grams. The petitioner claimed entitlement to Rs. 3.14 lakhs additional compensation due to customs duty differences. However, the court found that the petitioner had already received proper compensation under Instruction No. 22/2022-Customs, which determines gold value based on average market prices from three national economic dailies. The court calculated that due to gold price appreciation over 10 years (approximately Rs. 370 per 10 grams difference), the petitioner actually received around Rs. 2.8 lakhs additional value, negating the claimed shortfall. The petition was disposed of as the prayers were already satisfied.

---

---

The issues presented and considered in the judgment are as follows:1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to additional compensation from the Respondent after the confiscation and subsequent release of gold weighing 755.50 grams.2. Whether the calculation of customs duty charged by the Respondent was done correctly and in accordance with the law.3. Whether the Petitioner's claim for an additional sum of Rs. 3,14,255/- is valid based on the valuation of the gold and customs duty at different dates.Issue-wise detailed analysis:Issue 1:- The Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Respondent to comply with its order allowing the release of confiscated gold and to investigate illegalities.- The Petitioner was apprehended with 755.50 grams of gold in the form of stapler pins and the gold was confiscated under the Customs Act, 1962.- A penalty was imposed on the Petitioner, which was later challenged and the Petitioner was allowed to redeem the gold upon payment of a fine and penalty.- The Petitioner deposited the redemption fine but the gold was not released, leading to the present petition.- The Respondent initiated an inquiry as the seized gold was not traceable and a payment was made to the Petitioner as directed by the Court.Issue 2:- The Petitioner argued that the customs duty should be calculated based on the date of seizure, not the date of payment.- The Respondent contended that the prayers in the petition were already satisfied by the refund made to the Petitioner.- The Respondent relied on Instructions No. 22/2022-Customs for the valuation of the gold and customs duty calculation.- A judgment in Mohammad Zaid Salim v. Commissioner of Customs was cited to support the Respondent's position on valuation.Issue 3:- The Petitioner claimed an additional sum based on a calculation chart, arguing that the customs duty should be calculated at the date of seizure.- The Respondent argued that the Petitioner had already received an enhanced amount based on the value of gold in 2023.- The Respondent relied on Instructions No. 22/2022-Customs to support their calculation method.- The Court found that the Petitioner had received the value of the confiscated gold and the petition was disposed of.Significant holdings:- The Court found that the Petitioner's prayers were satisfied by the payment received and disposed of the petition.- The Petitioner was granted liberty to take further legal steps for recovery of any additional amounts due.In conclusion, the Court ruled in favor of the Respondent, finding that the Petitioner had already received the value of the confiscated gold and that the additional compensation claimed was not justified based on the valuation and customs duty calculations. The judgment emphasized the importance of following legal procedures and instructions in determining such financial matters.

---