TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (7) TMI 233
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the year, 1990. 3.The import was allowed without payment of Customs duty against a Bond, whereby the importer undertook to re-export the said materials after six months, or within such extended period as may be permitted by the competent authority. 4.The importer, it is alleged, failed and/or neglected to re-export the said materials. This was, however, not known to the Customs Authorities. 5.On the basis of information provided by the petitioner, the Customs Authorities traced out different lots of the materials, lying at different places in Haldia, in the year 1997, that is, about 7 years after the import. 6.According to the petitioner, the goods were traced out at the risk of the petitioner who had provided the informatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nly received the sum of Rs. 35 lakhs. The admitted payments to the petitioner on account of reward are an advance sum of Rs. 5 lakhs in February 1999, an instalment of Rs. 10 lakhs and an instalment of Rs. 20 lakhs in March, 2002. 12.The petitioner claims to have made a representation to the Respondent No. 2 on 13th February, 2003 claiming the balance amount of Rs. 24.60 lakhs allegedly due and payable to the petitioner by way of reward. 13.Since further the representations for release of the balance amount of Rs. 24.60 lakhs did not yield result, the petitioner has filed this writ application. 14.Affidavit-in-Opposition has been affirmed on behalf of the respondents, contesting the claim of the petitioner to further amount on acco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the petitioner had paid in February, 1999. 21.Mr. Chowdhury appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the entire customs duty, penalty and late charges realized was on account of initial information furnished by the petitioner at great personal risk. It was only after receipt of information from the petitioner that the customs authorities carried out final investigation and realized a total amount of Rs. 2.98 crores. 22.According to Mr. Chowdhury, it was immaterial that some of the duty was in respect of a consignment that had arrived at the Calcutta Air Port. Mr. Chowdhury argued that even though the petitioner had furnished information with regard to consignments that had arrived by sea, it was the initial information tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om the date on which a copy of this order is produced by the petitioner with interest at the rate of 15% per annum failing which the amount shall be paid at the rate of 18% per annum and the additional 3% per annum shall be borne by the responsible officer who is not taking immediate action in the matter." 24.Mr. Sibadas Banerjee appearing on behalf of the respondent authorities on the other hand contended that as per the notification referred to above, the maximum reward payable was 20%. 25.Mr. Banerjee submitted that the quantum of reward determined was not justiciable. The quantum of reward had been determined by a Committee after taking into account all relevant factors. 26.Mr. Banerjee relied on two judgments of the Supreme Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance. (See Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Sepahi Singh - AIR 1977 S.C. 2149 para 15, Lekhraj Satram Dass Lalvani v. Deputy Custodian-cum-Managing Officer, AIR 1966 SC 334 and Dr. Umakant Saran v. State of Bihar - AIR 1973 SC 964). By the very nature of things no one has a legal right to claim a reward. The scheme itself shows that it is purely an ex-gratia payment subject to guidelines and may be granted on the absolute discretion of the competent authority and cannot be claimed by anyone as a matter of right. In such circumstances the High Court committed manifest error of law in issuing a Writ of Mandamus directing the ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the guidelines, may be granted at the absolute discretion of the authority competent to grant rewards and cannot be claimed by any one as a matter of right. In determining the reward which may be granted the authority competent to grant reward will keep in mind the authenticity and accuracy of the information, the risk and trouble undertaken, the extent and nature of the help rendered by the informer whether information gives clues to persons involved in smuggling or their associates, etc. the risk involved for government servants in working out the case, the difficulty in securing the information the extent to which the vigilance of the staff led to the seizures, special initiative, efforts and ingenuity displayed etc. and whether besi....