TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had taken provision of 1000 kgs/quintals from the BSF. At no point of time did the Customs Authorities complain that 1000 kgs/quintals of sugar was not made over by the BSF - The Customs Authorities will, therefore, pay the petitioner the value of 73.35 kgs/quintals of sugar taking the same at ₹ 14/- per kg. Interest on account of encashment of bank guarantee - Held that: - The nature of transaction between the parties being commercial, it would be appropriate to direct the Customs Authorities to pay interest on the sum of ₹ 7,00,000/- for the period from April 5, 2008 till January 29, 2010 at the rate of 10% per annum. Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - WP No. 587 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 19-6-2017 - D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase upon the petitioner furnishing bank guarantee of ₹ 7,00,000/- and upon execution of a bond for a sum of ₹ 14,00,000/-. The petitioner had furnished a bank guarantee for the sum of ₹ 7,00,000/- in favour of the Customs Authorities. The confiscation proceedings received finality in terms of the order passed on July 15, 2009 by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal [CESTAT]. The petitioner, therefore, being entitled to return of the seized goods had applied for the same. The goods sought to be returned was 926.65 kgs/quintals instead of 1,000 kgs/quintals. The petitioner had received the return of the goods in writing dated December 21, 2006 after recording the quantum of the goods received by the petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntee. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and materials made available on record. 1000 kgs/quintals of sugar was seized by the BSF from the petitioner. The BSF had made over such goods to the Customs Authorities. The Customs Authorities had taken possession of the same. The Customs Authorities had released the materials provisionally. At the time of release, the Customs Authorities could make over 926.65 kgs/quintals instead of 1,000 kgs/quintals of the sugar to the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, became entitled to return of 73.35 kgs/quintals of sugar from the Customs Authorities. The justification in short delivery is that the goods were kept at the godowns belonging to the petitioner in sealed condition a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also. The Customs Authorities had invoked the bank guarantee on April 5, 2008. They had refunded the bank guarantee on January 29, 2010. The Customs Authorities had, therefore, kept money belonging to the petitioner for period from April 5, 2008 till January 29, 2010 without any authority. The rules referred to in affidavit-in-opposition relates to duty refund. The same does not deal with the situation as in the facts of the present case. The nature of transaction between the parties being commercial, it would be appropriate to direct the Customs Authorities to pay interest on the sum of ₹ 7,00,000/- for the period from April 5, 2008 till January 29, 2010 at the rate of 10% per annum. Such interest be also paid within four weeks from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
