By TIOL News Service

JAIPUR, FEB 26, 2015: ON 01.06.1993, the officers of the Customs division, Jodhpur intercepted a Mahindra Jeep on Ahmedabad Road and upon search of the vehicle contraband gold biscuits hidden in a false cavity were recovered and seized.

The gold was finally confiscated under Section 115 of the Customs Act, 1962 with penalties, and was sold.

In prosecution case No.68/94, the accused were found 'not guilty', and were discharged on 4.6.1997 under Section 135(1)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962.

The sale consideration of the gold, however, was not directed to be released as the matter was pending before the court of law with regard to the proceedings of seizure and confiscation.

In the appeal proceedings, the Tribunal vide its order dated 30.12.1997allowed the appeal with the findings that the Department was not able to discharge its burden of proof that the documents of valid possession shown and relied upon were not genuine, or that they did not relate to the seized gold. Granting benefit of doubt to the appellants and setting aside the order, all the three appeals were allowed, with the following further directions - "The three appellants will be entitled to the consequential benefits."

It seems nothing happened thereafter as far consequential benefits were concerned and, therefore, the appellant is before the High Court and inter alia makes the following prayers -

(a) to direct the respondents to return impugned 50 gold biscuits which were seized by Customs Department on 2.6.1993, to the petitioner forthwith:  

(b) in the alternative, if respondents are unable to return the gold biscuits, they may be directed to pay immediately Rs.3Lacs against the undervaluing of price of gold biscuits along with interest @ 18% P.A. on the principal amount of Rs.27,00,689/- from the date of seizure i.e.2.6.1993 till the date the payment is made to the petitioner:

It is also submitted that the consequential benefits would include the difference between the market price of the gold and the amount, for which the gold was sold, to be returned to the appellants with interest on the amount.

In the reply, it is stated by Revenue that the consequential benefits, as claimed by the petitioner, in pursuance to order of CEGAT dated 30.12.1997, were neither quantified, nor any direction was issued to assess and to pay the difference of the price of gold, on the date when it was seized, and thereafter sold, and interest.

The High Court, therefore, observed -

"7. The CEGAT was required to assess, compute and issue directions for any consequential benefits, which it had intended to be paid in the order. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not act as an executing court for any consequential directions. If no specific orders were passed with regard to consequential directions, the petitioner may approach appropriate authorities for its assessment/quantification and payment, in accordance with law."

The Writ Petition was dismissed.

(See 2015-TIOL-481-HC-RAJ-CUS)