TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 742
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts viz. 4 gold kadas, 4 gold kadiwali chains, and 1 gold chain totally weighing 937.800 grams having market value of Rs. 29,86,045/- and Tariff value of Rs. 26,28,982/-. Since the gold jewellary / ornaments were not declared on arrival, the same were seized and subsequently absolutely confiscated under the Provisions of Section 111 (d) (i) (l) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 vide Order-in-Original dated 31st December, 2018 issued by the Additional Commissioner, Customs House, Ahmedabad. Penalty of Rs. 2,62,000/- was also imposed on the appellant under the provisions of Section 112 (a) and (b) of the Customs Act, 1962. 1.2 Aggrieved from the order dated 31st December, 2018 passed by the Additional Commissioner, as mentioned above, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Ahmedabad. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal vide Order-in-Appeal dated 1st October, 2019. Being aggrieved from the Order-in-Appeal dated 1st October, 2019, the appellant filed Revision Application under Section 129 DD of the Customs Act, 1962. The Principal Commissioner and ex-officio Additional Secretary to Government of India vide order no. 243-244/2022 CU....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion that on conjoint reading of Section 125 (2) of the Customs Act, 1962, the order dated 24th August, 2022 passed by the Principal Commissioner and ex-officio Additional Secretary to Government of India and para 2 (i) and 3.1.2 (i) of the Instruction No. 22/2022 Customs dated 6th September, 2022 issued under F. No. CBIC-50711/5/2021-INV CUSTOMS, it is clear that the Adjudicating Authority has correctly effected the deduction in table 4 of the impugned order. He found no infirmity in the Order-in-Original dated 12th October, 2023 and accordingly, he dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. Feeling aggrieved from the impugned order dated 26th July, 2024, the appeal has been filed before this Tribunal. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Revenue failed to follow the due process provided under Section 110(1B) of Customs Act for disposing of gold. Section 110 (1B) provides that where any goods, being goods specified under sub-section (1A), have been seized by a proper officer under sub-section 1, he shall prepare an inventory of such goods containing such details relating to their description, quality, quantity, mark, numbers, country of origin and other....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... persons like the petitioners and to sell the seized goods at the Ipse Dixit of the officers is not what the law would recognize. The procedure to dispose of such valuable commodities is required to withstand the test of law and more particularly the constitutional requirement of reasonableness (not arbitrariness), fairness and transparency as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution coupled with safeguarding the valuable rights of property recognized by the Constitution. 2.5 The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the appellant is entitled to get market value of the gold as existed on the date of payment via cheque issued by the department. He further submitted that the confiscated gold was melted on 16th January, 2020 when the market price of gold was Rs. 40,986/- per ten grams. However, the cheque for the melted gold was handed over on 14th December, 2022, after more than 2 years of melting of the said gold when the market price of the gold was Rs. 52,670/- per ten grams. The Revenue was duty bound to have returned the amount equivalent to the market value of the gold i.e. Rs. 52,670/- per ten grams when the cheque was issued to the appellant. Therefore, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5 (2) of the Customs Act, order dated 24th August, 2022 of the Principal Commissioner and ex-officio Additional Secretary to Government of India and para 2 (i) and 3.1.2 (i) of Instruction No. 22/2022 Customs dated 06.09.2022, it is clear that the Adjudicating Authority has correctly effected the deduction as shown in table 4 of the Order-in-Original. He has prayed that the impugned order be upheld and the appeal must be rejected. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue and perused the records. In Instruction No. 22/2022-Customs, issued by Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, CBIC dated 6th September, 2022, it has been provided:- "3.1.2 whenever seized gold has to be returned on account of any order from the Judicial forum and the gold has already been disposed off, the amount to be refunded in lieu of such gold shall be calculated as given below:- (i) if the seizure is made in the Customs area, calculation shall be based on the Tariff Value of gold on the date of transfer of such seized / confiscated gold to SPMCIL; and (ii) if the seizure is made at an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t to the Petitioner. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court also held that no duty would be liable to be deducted from the said payment of the value of the detained gold as the petitioner has already deposited the redemption fine and penalty in terms of the Order-in- Appeal. 4.6 I am of the view that it was not proper on the part of the department to have sent the gold seized from the appellant to Mint without informing him. In this context, it is pertinent to refer to the order passed in Satish Mehta and Dhanishtha Gold vs C. C. Ahmedabad - 2022 (11) TMI 62- CESTAT Ahmedabad. The Tribunal has held in this case that during the disputed period when the matter was sub-judice before the Tribunal, the Department, in a hasty manner disposed off the goods without seeking permission from the Appellate Court where the matter was sub-judice. Thus, the department has committed a serious mistake by disposal of the disputed goods which was a subject matter of appeal. The department also did not intimate the appellants regarding the disposal of confiscated goods. This act of the department exparte cannot be held as proper and legal. The Tribunal cited Kailash Ribbon Factory Ltd vs. Commissioner of Cus....