2020 (12) TMI 486

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d returned from Penang, Malaysia on 10.06.1974 and had brought travellers cheque for UK Pounds 2000 which had been duly declared to the Customs Authority of arrival. They also stated that the original travellers cheques were lost and subsequently replaced by the foreign exchange dealer, Thomas Cook, by issuing travellers cheques in lieu. Pursuant to the said seizure, a show cause notice was issued and the adjudication order dated 05.05.1997 was pronounced imposing a penalty of Rs. 3000/- in addition to the confiscation. The Petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board (the Appellate Board). By order dated 14.02.1980, in Appeal No.863 of 1977, the Appellate Board confirmed the order of confiscation of UK Pounds 2000 but reduced the penalty to Rs. 1000/-. 3. The order of the Appellate Board was challenged in C.M.A.No.82 of 1992 before this Court. By order dated 26.11.1999, this Court upheld the confiscation of UK Pounds 200 but set aside the order of the Appellate Board as regards the confiscation of UK Pounds 1800 on the ground that the substitute travellers cheques were issued to the Petitioner on 23.07.1974 and, consequently, she ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oncluded that the owner of the goods would have been entitled to the use of the said goods but for the wrongful confiscation thereof. As such, the person responsible for such confiscation is liable to pay the monetary value of the said goods with interest thereon at 12 % per annum from the date of confiscation till the date of payment. (iii) Satinder Singh and others v. Umrao Sing and others, AIR 1961 SC 908, wherein, in the context of land acquisition, it was held that the person whose land was acquired is entitled to interest at 4% per annum on the compensation amount from the date when possession of the land was taken to the date on which the compensation amount was deposited or paid. (iv) Union of India vs. Tata Chemicals (2014) 6 SCC 335, wherein, in the context of wrongful deduction of tax by a resident on payments due to a non-resident, the Supreme Court concluded that interest was payable on the refunded sum. 6. On the contrary, Mr.Ramesh, the learned counsel for the Enforcement Directorate, submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable. In order to substantiate this contention, he pointed out that the Petitioner is a Malaysian citizen; as such, she is not en....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ect that the amount be refunded with interest. (b) M/s.Dejero Logix Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Imports) Air Cargo, New Customs House near IGI Airport, New Delhi, wherein a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court concluded that the customs authorities are liable to pay the value of goods at the time of seizure and not the value at the time of subsequent sale of said goods. (c) M/s.Kalpana Glass Fibre Pvt Ltd. v. State of Orissa & others, CDJ 2012 Orissa HC 411, wherein the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suganmal v. State of Madhya Pradesh & others (1965) 16 STC 2398 and concluded that a writ petition would not be maintainable for the refund of money which was unlawfully collected as tax and that a civil suit should be filed in respect thereof. 8. I considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and examined the materials on record. 9. The facts are largely undisputed in the present case. Both parties agree that travellers cheques for a total of UK pounds 2000 were seized from the Petitioner's house by the officers of the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ceeds realized pursuant to a direction under Section 42(1), which are deposited in a separate account in terms of sub-section 2 thereof. The inference from the above conclusion would be that interest cannot be claimed under Section 42(3) of FERA but the legitimacy of the interest claim de hors Section 42(3) is a distinct matter and it should be examined whether the Petitioner's claim is otherwise sustainable. 12.Mr.Abdul Nazeer contended that the Petitioner could not claim interest in C.M.A.No.82 of 1992 because the said appeal challenged the order of the Appellate Board dated 14.02.1980 and, therefore, the Petitioner could only pray for setting aside the order of the Appellate Board. Nonetheless, upon receipt of the order dated 26.11.1999 whereby the order of confiscation of UK Pounds 1800 was set aside, the Petitioner could have requested for a modification of the said order so as to direct the payment of interest on the rupee equivalent of UK Pounds 1800. In the alternative, the Petitioner could have impugned the said order in so far as interest liability is concerned. Indeed, it is clear from the letter dated 18.02.2000 that the Petitioner signed the claim bill for Rs. 32,....