9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 55X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n No.2976 of 2004. 3) By order dated 19 October 2010 another Division Bench of this Court by common order disposed of the three FERA appeals (bearing Nos.64,65 and 66 of 2006)filed by the Director of Enforcement and Writ petition No.2976 of 2004 filed by the petitioner. The order dated 19 October 2010 dismissed three FERA appeals filed by the Director of Enforcement on the ground that he is not entitled to file an appeal on behalf of the Central Government as held by the Apex Court in Mohtesjam Mohd. Ismail Vs. Special Director, Enforcement Directorate and anr. in 2007 AIR SCW 6348. So far as the Writ Petition No.2976 of 2004 is concerned, the order dated 19 October 2010 allowed the petitioner's prayer for release of US$ 289250 by the Cust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... serve Bank of India to export the same. On 5 March 2012, the Commissioner of Customs directed a refund of US$ 289250 to the applicant in accordance with the rules. On 12 April 2012 the Dy. Commissioner of Customs sanctioned refund of Rs.89,23362/. This on the ground that that consequent to seizure, the US $ 289250 was converted into Indian Rupees in 1994 resulting in Rs.89,23,362/. 6) Mr. Nitin Thakkar, Senior Counsel in support of the application states that in spite of the clear directions in the order dated 19 October 2010 the Customs Department is not refunding US$ 289250. In particular, he invites our attention to the following portion of the order dated 19 October 2010: "19. In so far as Writ Petition No.2976 of 2004 is concerned, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om date." Sd/Sd/ ( R.M.SAVANT, J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.) In view of the above, it submitted that the amount US$ 2,89,250/should be refunded to the applicants. 7) In response Mr. Pradeep Jetly, Counsel appearing for the revenue states that the amount US$ 2,89,250 was seized in the year 1993 and the same was deposited/sold to State Bank of India on 17 March 1994. The equivalent amount of Rs.89,32,362 was received by the department from State Bank of India and the same amount was credited into department's bank account. This very amount of Rs.89,23,362/is now being refunded to the petitioner. It was submitted that the US$ being foreign currency was notified in terms of Section 110(1A) of the Customs Act by the Central Government in 1996. In terms ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal before the Supreme Court on merits of the refund of US$ 289250 to the petitioner. In these circumstances, we are not called upon to decide the issue raised by Mr. Pradeep Jelty on behalf of the Customs Department. The Customs Department is bound to implement the order dated 19 October 2010 of this Court. 10) Even otherwise, the petitioner has not been granted any interest on the amount of refund. It would therefore, be arbitrary and unreasonable to deny the petitioner, both interest on the arrears of refund for the period from 1994 to 2014 on the one hand and the compensation consequential upon variations in the foreign exchange rate between 1994 to 2014 on other hand. 11) In the above circumstances, we direct the Customs Department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
