RAJEEV KUMAR AGGARWAL Vs. CEGAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the ld. Counsel for the petitioner and ld. Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner for quashing the orders passed by the Collector of Customs on 25-1-1991 and the order of the Appellate Tribunal dated 7-4-1995 and directions to deliver the goods to the petitioner or to the Railway Authorities. The petitioner claimed that by virtue of certain Railway receipts, the Ball Bearings purchased from Calcutta should have been released in favour of the petitioner. Admittedly these Ball Bearings were seized by the Customs Authorities while they were in the custody of Northern Railway Authorities at Calcutta. The Customs Authorities seized the goods as they wanted to investigate whether they were smuggled goods. The Collector of Customs passed an order on 25-1-1991 and found as follows :-

(2.) In this Writ Petition, we have given notice of the Northern Railways and learned Counsel appearing for Northern Railways. The petitioner's Counsel submits that on finding that the goods are not notified goods and there was no material produced by the department that the goods were smuggled goods, the only finding that should have been given by the Collector was that the goods were not smuggled goods. Ld. Counsel further contends that once such a finding is given, the Collector ought to have restored the goods to the Railway Authorities from whom the goods were seized, leaving it open to the Railway Authorities to decide any claim that might be made before it for restoration.

(3.) We are of the opinion that the contention of the ld. Counsel for the petitioner is well founded. On the finding that the goods are not notified and that the department was unable to prove that they were smuggled goods, the only conclusion that the Collector could have come to was that there was no proof that the goods were smuggled goods. Therefore, he had no jurisdiction to order confiscation of the goods. The order of the Collector and of the Appellate Tribunal quashing the confiscation of goods is accordingly quashed.