Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2010 (5) TMI 448

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... irmed or modified and the differential duty and the penalty levied is found recoverable then the amount in the fixed deposit together with the accrued interest can be adjusted against such amount at the appropriate stage – No illegality committed by Commissioner in Sale of seized goods - 3959 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 4-5-2010 - S. Muralidhar, J. REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri R.K. Handoo with S.P. Pandey, Advocates, for the Petitioner. S/Shri Mukesh Anand with Shailesh Tiwari, Sumit Batra and R.C.S. Bhadoria, Advocates, for the Respondent. [Order]. he challenge in this writ petition is to a communication dated17th March 2008from the Office of the Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Tughlakabad addressed to the Petitioner concern .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... intimation whatsoever/notice of any kind has been sent to the Petitioner . The attention of this Court was drawn to the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent in February 2009 where no mention was made about the sale of the seized goods. In the circumstances, the prayer in the said application was for a direction to the Respondents to place before this Court all the papers with regard to the said sale of goods of the Petitioner and as to how the said sale was affected without any notice to the Petitioner . 4. In reply to this application it has been stated on behalf of the Respondents that the Petitioner himself had written three letters dated3rd June 2008,26th July 2008and23rd August 2008requesting the department to dispose of the s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 190 of 2009 praying inter alia that the Respondents should be directed to place the full facts with regard to sale of the seized goods before the court. He also prayed that the matter be referred to the Central Bureau of Investigation ( CBI ) to examine if offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 have been committed by officers of the Respondent. 4. A reply has been filed to the said application, supported by an affidavit of Mr. H.L. Wadhwani, Assistant Commissioner (Disposal), Office of Commissioner of Customs, Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad,New Delhi. 5. In the rejoinder affidavit dated10th March 2010the Petitioner has pointed out that the above reply does not deal with the issue of sale of the seized goods on7th Aug .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... m of Rs. 10,26,000/- plus Vat of Rs. 1,28,250/- totaling Rs. 11,54,250/-. It is stated therein that there is, therefore, no basis of the allegation made by the Petitioner regarding any mala fide action or corruption on the part of the officials of the department. 7. Mr. R.K. Handoo, learned counsel for the Petitioner raised strong objections to the procedure purportedly adopted by the Respondents in the instant case. Referring to the Circular dated20th February 2006he submits that underPara4 of the said circular it was mandatory for the department to have given the Petitioner prior notice of disposal of the seized goods. There is no explanation forthcoming as to why this was not done. 8. Mr. Mukesh Anand, learned counsel appearing for t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hat the disposal of the goods without prior notice to the Petitioner under Section 150 of the Customs Act, has to be examined in light of the possible prejudice caused to the Petitioner on account of the failure to be given such prior notice. The Petitioner must be able to show that if he had been given prior notice of the sale then the goods would have fetched a higher price. It appears to this Court that given the declared invoice value of the imported goods of 17,000 US dollars, the sale of the goods to NCCF for a sum of Rs. 10,26,000/- more than two years later, cannot be said to have caused prejudice to the Petitioner. In any event, the Petitioner was itself keen that the goods which were perishable in nature should be disposed of in a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates