AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 385
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs. 42,28,260 which represents the value of goods destroyed by the Customs authorities. 2. Brief facts are as under: Petitioner is a sole proprietary concern and is engaged in the business of selling medicines. For such purpose, the petitioner was holding a valid drug licence issued by the competent authority. Such drug licence expired on 21.12.2011. Before expiry the petitioner had already applied for renewal of the licence. Such renewal was granted on 10.02.2014 retrospectively extending the licence from 01.01.2012 to 31.12.2016. 3. The petitioner had purchased codeine based cough syrup in the year 2012. The goods in question were seized by the Customs authorities while in transit in the transport vehicles on 01.04.2012. The Cust....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d expired after 31.12.2011 and the same had not been renewed when the consignments of codeine based cough syrup were detected on 01.04.2012. In his order dated 29.11.2013, the Adjudicating Authority opined that M/s Universal Drug Centre, Agartala have been dealing in codeine based cough syrup without the requisite permission from the Drug Controlling Authority. Shri Satya Ranjan Saha could not produce any evidence before the investigation or Commissioner (Appeals) that the Drug Licence had been renewed by the Competent Authority. However, during the Personal Hearing held on 26.06.2018, in the remand proceedings on the direction of Hon'ble CESTAT, Shri Satya Ranjan Saha submitted a letter dated 26.06.2018 enclosing copy of the renewed Drug L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... quoted portion. He, however, did not state anything about the confiscation of the goods. The petitioner thereupon approached the Appellate Commissioner who disposed the appeal by an order dated 07.12.2018. He was of the opinion that the adjudicating authority had deleted the penalty but not passed any order on confiscation of the goods. Thus, there was no valid order providing for the confiscation and, therefore, even without filing appeal the petitioner could have approached the competent authority for release of the goods. With these remarks, the appeal was disposed of. The petitioner thereupon approached the Assistant Commissioner of Customs under letter dated 21.01.2019 and requested for release of the goods failing which he requested ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g. 7. The petitioner has not been able to build a case of mala fide or vindictive action on part of the adjudicating authority in originally initiating proceedings and eventually ordering confiscation of goods and imposing personal penalties on the petitioner and other co-noticees. In fact, other co-noticees did not challenge the order. Qua them such order be achieved finality. Only petitioner carried the order in appeal. Commissioner of Appeal had confirmed the order. The Tribunal remanded the proceedings for fresh consideration by the adjudicating authority. In the second round, the adjudicating authority found that personal penalty should not be imposed on the petitioner. In the process, he made no comments about the confiscation of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....turned to its owner. The petitioner could have applied for such redemption fine. Could also have approached the High Court for release of the goods on certain conditions in view of impeding expiry of the drugs. The petitioner could also have urged the Customs authorities to auction the goods well in time so that the market price could have been fetched and if the petitioner ultimately succeeded such sale price could have been paid over to the petitioner. 10. In case of Kailash Ribbon Factory Ltd. vs. The Commr. Of Customs and Central Excise and another reported in (2002) 97 DLT 826 Division Bench of Delhi High Court was concerned with the case where the Customs department during the pendency of the appeal of the petitioner without permis....