TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (3) TMI 57
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....petitioner imported one set of design workstation with flat bed scanner, floppy disc, etc. from M/s. Viable Systems Inc., USA. The breakup price shown in the invoice was US $ 22,500.00 for hardware and US $ 60,000.00 for software, which worked out at Rs. 7,16,974.00 for hardware and Rs. 19,11,930.00 for software. The officers of the Customs Department raided the premises of the importer. One of the documents seized was a proforma invoice dated 27-12-94. It showed a total price of US $ 82,500.00 and discount of US $ 39,325.00. The breakup value of hardware and software was not separately given. The Commissioner of Customs by his order dated 31-5-1995 rejected the discount of US $ 39,325.00 and enhanced the value of the imported goods to US $....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ounsel this case is squarely covered by Section 126 of the Customs Act. Section 126 reads as under : On confiscation, property to vest in Central"126. Government. - (1) When any goods are confiscated under this Act, such goods shall thereupon vest in the Central Government." 7. Therefore, according to the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner after confiscation, the goods became the property of the Central Government. During the pendency of the petitioner's appeal, without any permission of the court, the confiscated goods were auctioned in a clandestine manner by the respondents. The respondents are obviously under an obligation to compensate the petitioner for the grave loss which has been caused to him. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assed by us declaring retention and confiscation of the goods to be illegal. Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, learned Additional Solicitor General, however, further submitted that value of the goods as shown in the import documents was only Rs. 33.04 lakhs and as the duty and the Warehousing charges payable are more than the said amount, the applicant is not entitled to recover anything from the respondent. What is over-looked by the learned Counsel is the consequence of setting aside the order of confiscation on the ground that it was illegal. The applicant has become entitled to the value of the goods as on the date or time when the goods ought to have been cleared by the respondent for home consumption. If the value of the goods in India after imp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e such an action if it feels that the loss suffered by it is more than Rs. 33.04 lakhs. Merely because it is open to the applicant to initiate such an action it would not be just and proper to refuse the claim made in these applications as in any case the applicant is entitled to return the money value of the goods which were illegally confiscated by the respondent. Even though the applicant has claimed interest @ 21% we do not think it proper to award interest at such a high rate and considering the facts and circumstances of the case it would be in the interest of justice if the respondent is directed to return the amount of Rs. 33.04 lakhs with interest at the rate of 12% from 1-2-1989 till the date of payment as the Collector by its ord....