Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2020 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 385 - HC - CustomsSeeking a sum which represents the value of goods destroyed by the Customs authorities - illegal trade - HELD THAT:- 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. The Customs authorities cannot be saddled with refunding of the value of the goods to the petitioner. The Customs authorities having acted bona fide, the department cannot be asked to compensate the petitioner for incidental loss suffered by him on account of the pendency of the proceedings. It is neither the case of the petitioner that wholly mala fide in order to harass the petitioner the proceedings were initiated or that the same protracted. In fact, a part of the blame for destruction of the drugs must be attached to the petitioner itself. Under the Customs Act, provisions are there where under certain circumstances even after confiscation of the goods in respect of which any of the legal breaches are detected, the authority can provide for redemption fine and on payment of which in lieu of absolute confiscation, the goods can be returned to its owner. The petitioner could have applied for such redemption fine - 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. In the present case, during the pendency of the proceedings before the order of confiscation of the goods were set aside by the CESTAT and issues were re-decided by the adjudicating authority, the drugs had expired and, therefore, destroyed - Petition dismissed.
|