Tribunal orders Revenue to pay appellant for confiscated goods, stresses proper procedure in disposing of seized items.

The Tribunal set aside the confiscation order of the appellant's metal scrap by the Commissioner of Customs, directing the release of the goods. However, the Revenue sold the goods without informing the appellant. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, ordering the Revenue to pay the balance amount of the goods' value within two months, emphasizing the appellant's entitlement to the value of the goods prevailing at the time of seizure. The judgment underscores the necessity of adhering to proper procedures in disposing of seized goods during appeal proceedings and affirms appellants' rights to the return or market value of seized goods upon successful appeals.

---

---

Issues:
The judgment involves the unauthorized sale of seized goods during appeal proceedings and the entitlement of the appellant to compensation for the difference in value.

Unauthorized Sale of Seized Goods:
The appellant's metal scrap was confiscated by the Commissioner of Customs, but the Tribunal set aside the order and directed the release of the goods. However, the goods were sold by the Revenue without informing the appellant, leading to the present application. The appellant argued that seized goods cannot be sold until the final outcome of appeal proceedings, citing legal precedents supporting the return of goods or payment of their market price upon setting aside the confiscation order.

Compensation for Difference in Value:
The appellant received a cheque for a significantly lower amount than the value of the released goods. Referring to legal decisions, the appellant contended that the Revenue should pay the balance amount of the goods' value, as they had valued the seized goods at Rs. 9,09,200/- themselves. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, directing the department to pay the balance amount within two months, emphasizing that the appellant was entitled to the value of the goods prevalent at the time of seizure.

The judgment highlights the importance of following due process in the disposal of seized goods during appeal proceedings and upholds the principle that appellants are entitled to the return of seized goods or their market value upon successful appeal outcomes.

---