COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Vs. MOTI LAL GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals deal with similar issues on both law and facts and, therefore, we propose to dispose of all the three appeals by this common judgment/ order.

(2.) These appeals pertain to seizure of the polyster fabric imported by the respondent. The aforesaid seizure was made by the appellant at Mumbai and Delhi for want of valid licences. However, subsequently it has been proved and established in these cases, that the consignments of polyster fabric were covered by valid licences and imports were made in accordance with law and the consignments were wrongly seized by the appellant, viz. Department of Revenue Intelligence.

(3.) Since the goods were perishable in nature, therefore, during the pendency of the writ petition, prayer was made by the respondent for selling the said goods and the money to be realised be kept in a fixed deposit account until final adjudication of the proceedings. Division Bench of this Court passed an order on 4th August, 1887 for sale of the aforesaid goods by the appellant after keeping samples with a further direction that sale proceeds realised therefrom to be kept in a fixed deposit account. The said order was passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P(C) No. 466/1987. This order was subsequently modified on 4th April, 1998 with a specific direction that the goods will be sold by the customs department within six months. Similar orders were passed in other cases. These goods were ultimately sold by the custom authorities after a long gap only on 2nd April, 1998.