TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (1) TMI 396
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and had also filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents dated 24.03.2010. 3. Heard the arguments of Mr.R.Yashod Vardhan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.B.Satish Sundar, learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. The facts leading to the filing of the case are as follows: On 14.03.1993, the residential premises of the petitioner was searched by the Officers of the Customs Preventive Unit, Salem. From the kitchen of his house, 6 gunny bags containing silver ingots were recovered and seized. It was recorded in a Mahazar. The petitioner produced two baggage receipts issued by Calicut Airport covering those ingots. The officers nevertheless seized the ingots on the ground that the numbers and marking found i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the second respondent but reduced the penalty. 7. The respondent informed the petitioner that on 25.03.1998 the silver bars under seizure were sent to Chennai Customs House for disposal. On 20.05.1998, the reference application was also disposed of. 8. The petitioner filed W.P.No.14948 of 1998 before this Court challenging the order of the Tribunal. On 25.10.2006, this Court directed the respondents to extend the option of redemption in respect of the seized silver ingots if available with the department. The petitioner on 02.03.2007 sent a letter to the second respondent. Written submissions were also made on 14.09.2009 followed with a letter dated 25.09.2009 through his counsel seeking for a personal hearing. Howeve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6 to contend that in view of the liberalization policy of the Central Government with regard to importation of gold and silver, the total confiscation is uncalled for. The liberalization policy has been adopted from the year 1992- 93 onwards. This is a case on which the petitioner was found in possession of the ingots, which were recovered in the year 1993. Hence, same treatment, which has been given to the petitioners in the above referred to cases, has to be given to this petitioner as well. 6. Having regard to the above disputed fact and also the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that the same view which has been taken by the Kolkata Tribunal in Hiralal Bhagat v. Commissioner of Cus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f this Court cannot be considered as a direction to return either the seized ingots or to pay the amount in lieu of the seized goods. 12. Under Section 110(1A) of the Customs Act, 1962 the notified goods seized by the department can be disposed of by the department immediately after the seizure and the silver bars are the notified commodity under Section 110(1A) of the Act. Having regard to the constraint involved in storage of high valued goods and considering the liquidity to exchequer, the silver ingots were disposed of. The order of this Court for release of the impugned goods on redemption fine was subject to availability of the goods. Since the imported goods are not available with the Department, the question of exercising ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t value of the goods. 15. In Paragraph 7 of the Northern Plastics Ltd's case (cited supra), the Supreme Court observed as follows:- "7. As the order of confiscation of goods was held to be bad the goods were required to be returned to the owner thereof. As the order of confiscation was declared as illegal by this Court on the ground that there was mis-declaration of the goods and that the applicant was entitled to import those goods on the O.G.L., the confiscated goods, if they had not been disposed of, would have been required to be released in favour of the applicant and the applicant could have claimed damages for the damage to the goods and loss caused to it as a result of illegal retention of the goods by the respon....