TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 385X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he business of selling medicines. For such purpose, the petitioner was holding a valid drug licence issued by the competent authority. Such drug licence expired on 21.12.2011. Before expiry the petitioner had already applied for renewal of the licence. Such renewal was granted on 10.02.2014 retrospectively extending the licence from 01.01.2012 to 31.12.2016. 3. The petitioner had purchased codeine based cough syrup in the year 2012. The goods in question were seized by the Customs authorities while in transit in the transport vehicles on 01.04.2012. The Customs authorities issued show-cause notice and instituted adjudication proceedings against the petitioner and several other persons who according to the adjudicating authority were inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hority opined that M/s Universal Drug Centre, Agartala have been dealing in codeine based cough syrup without the requisite permission from the Drug Controlling Authority. Shri Satya Ranjan Saha could not produce any evidence before the investigation or Commissioner (Appeals) that the Drug Licence had been renewed by the Competent Authority. However, during the Personal Hearing held on 26.06.2018, in the remand proceedings on the direction of Hon ble CESTAT, Shri Satya Ranjan Saha submitted a letter dated 26.06.2018 enclosing copy of the renewed Drug Licence. He also placed the original renewed Drug Licence before the Adjudicating Authority to prove its authenticity. On scrutiny of the renewed Drug Licence, it is found that Shri Satya Ranja ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7.12.2018. He was of the opinion that the adjudicating authority had deleted the penalty but not passed any order on confiscation of the goods. Thus, there was no valid order providing for the confiscation and, therefore, even without filing appeal the petitioner could have approached the competent authority for release of the goods. With these remarks, the appeal was disposed of. The petitioner thereupon approached the Assistant Commissioner of Customs under letter dated 21.01.2019 and requested for release of the goods failing which he requested for payment of a sum of ₹ 42,28,260 which was the value of the goods in question. On 08.04.2019 the Assistant Commissioner wrote to the petitioner and stated that the seized goods were alrea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ering 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. In the second round, the adjudicating authority found that personal penalty should not be imposed on the petitioner. In the process, he made no comments about the confiscation of the goods. It was, therefore, that the Commissioner allowed the petitioner to approach the competent authority for release of goods since there was no order for confiscation and the earl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peding expiry of the drugs. 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. 10. In case of Kailash Ribbon Factory Ltd. vs. The Commr. Of Customs and Central Excise and another reported in (2002) 97 DLT 826 Division Bench of Delhi High Court was concerned with the case where the Customs department during the pendency of the appeal of the petitioner without permission of the Court auctioned the confiscated goods in a clandestine manner. It was in this background that the High Court compensated the petitioner for serious lapse on part of the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
