By TIOL News Service

CHENNAI, SEPT 13, 2015. THE case of the petitioner is that on 12.04.2002, the son of the petitioner was to undertake a trip to Delhi by Indian Airlines Flight. During surveillance, the son of the petitioner was intercepted in the airport at Chennai and the officials of the revenue intelligence noticed that he was in possession of 215 Nos. of Cellular Phones of assorted brands and models with accessories. Not satisfied with the explanations offered that those articles were purchased from the customs house on the belief that they were duty paid articles by his son, the authorities seized the entire goods valued at Rs.11,66,000/- alleging that they are smuggled goods.

Thereafter, a SCN came to be issued u/s 124 of the Customs Act calling upon the petitioner as to why the goods should not be confiscated and penalty should not be imposed on him and on his son.

By an order dated 19.04.2003 , the Additional Commissioner of Customs (Airport), Chennai, held that the goods were not liable for confiscation and the petitioner and his son were not liable to pay any penalty.

With this order in hand, when the petitioner approached the authority concerned by way of an application for the release of the goods so seized, to his shock and surprise, he was informed that the goods were already disposed of by the disposal unit, Customs house at Chennai.

Subsequently, by letter dated 18.02.2004 , he was advised to claim the value of the goods. Thereafter, by his letter dated 19.03.2004 , when he claimed the value of the goods, he was paid only a sum of Rs.7,29,327/- alleging that the goods were disposed of only for Rs.7,29,327/-.

Thereafter, he sent two notices through his counsel on 07.04.2004 and 21.04.2004 respectively claiming refund of balance amount, but there was no response.

Thus, the Writ Petition came to be filed in the year 2004 seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the balance amount of Rs.4,36,676/- out of Rs.11,66,000/- being the value of the goods, which were seized from the custody and auctioned by the respondents, together with interest.

The Counsel for the Revenue submitted that the goods were sold as per the value prevalent at the relevant point of time but this submission was ‘stoutly' opposed to by the petitioner.

The High Court while disposing of the petition observed -

"…considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in order to give quietus to the issue, without going into the merits of the claim made by the petitioner, the respondents are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 19.03.2004 followed by reminders dated 07.04.2004 and 21.04.2004 issued through his lawyer and pass appropriate orders on the same on merits and in accordance with law within a period four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

(See 2015-TIOL-2107-HC-MAD-CUS)