9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 538X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s sold by the Customs Department pursuant to the order of absolute confiscation which was passed. 3. The Commissioner of Customs by order dated 15-11-1999 ordered for absolute confiscation of the 40 gold bars of foreign origin weighing about 4665.65 gms, valued at Rs. 20,60,000/- under Sections 111(d) and (e) of the Customs Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the confiscated car bearing Regn. No. TN-72-A-3004 under Section 115(2) of the Act with an option for redemption against payment of fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- under Section 125 of the Act and penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- was imposed on the petitioner under Section 112(a) of the Act. 4. The petitioner challenged the order of confiscation and imposition of fine and penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Tribunal reads as follows :- "However, now that the department has already disposed of the goods and collected sale proceeds, we are of the view that reasonable amounts of fine and penalty can be realized out of the sale proceeds and the balance amount should be released to the party. For this purpose, learned Commissioner should determine the redemption fine to be paid in lieu of confiscation of the gold bars. This shall be done after giving the appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard. As regards the car, the question to be considered is whether the fine of Rs. 1 lakh fixed by the Commissioner is reasonable. It is now on record that the car was sold in auction at Rs. 62,500/-. In the circumstances, the fine of Rs. 1 lak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid to the petitioner by way of refund by the Department. Now the claim of the petitioner is that the Department is liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the order i.e., 12-1-2007 till the order of the Tribunal on 17-12-2007. 7. From the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, it is seen that there is no request made by the petitioner to the Department claiming such interest and copy of any such representation has also not been filed in the typed set. Therefore, the only question which falls for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to claim interest for the said period at the rate of 9% per annum. 8. Firstly, it has to be noted that the Commissioner of Customs passed an ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the order of stay passed by the Tribunal. 9. That apart, after the directions was issued by the Tribunal by passing revised order, order-in-original (de novo) was passed and the petitioner has also received the refund being Rs. 12,89,094/-. In such circumstances, the petitioner having not questioned the sale of the gold bars during the pendency of the appeal, nor made any claim before the Tribunal nor made any representation to the authorities, now cannot seek for interest to be granted for the said period by filing this writ petition. 10. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents on the date when the sale was effected the goods in question namely, gold bars ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
