UNION OF INDIA Vs. C KRISHNA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal is filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 22-9-1998 made in W. P. No. 4523 of 1996 whereby the learned single Judge directed the appellants/respondents to pay a further sum of Rs. 25 lakhs in addition to Rs. 10 lakhs to the respondent/petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Learned single judge also directed to determine the respondent/petitioner's entitlement of the reward in respect of the balance amount and fix the quantum and pass an order with regard to the disbursement of the same within 3 months thereafter.

(2.) THE necessary facts in brief, for the disposal of the writ appeal are - That the petitioner, an informer, furnished certain details to the effect that M/s. Sanjeevani Fodder Products Pvt. Ltd. (Sanjeevani) and M/s. Fometa India Machines Pvt. Ltd. (FOMETA) had evaded customs duty amounting to Rs. 3 crores approximately by contravening the conditions of Adhoc Exemption Order No. 103/87, dated 30-3-1987 as amended. It is also alleged that M/s. Sanjeevani had got the exemption order from the government of India exempting Fodder Production Units to be imported by them subject to the conditions that they would donate to Bharath Krishk Samaj within 15 days from the date of clearance, and would use them only for demonstration purposes but, conditions have been violated. It is alleged that M/s. Sanjeevani had imported and cleared through the Port of Madras these machines free of duty in terms of the said exemption order. It is further stated in the affidavit that M/s. Sanjeevani had produced some documents showing donations, and that instead of 50 machines, 56 machines had been actually imported and 5 out of the 6 excess machines had been sold by them to some Government Department. It is also submitted that on information and on investigation, the Department was of the view that certain items were liable for confiscation and accordingly confiscated them under the proviso to Section 110 (1) of the Customs Act, the details of which were given in the affidavit. It is further alleged that the conditions of the ad hoc exemption order dated 30-3-1987 had been violated and that 50 FPUs cleared without payment of customs duties, are liable for confiscation under Section 111 (o) of the Customs Act. It is further stated that as the use for fabrication of FPUs by FOMETA was in violation of the import policy for spares, they are liable for confiscation under Section 111 (d) of the customs Act. It is further stated that besides the proceedings for confiscation they are liable for penal action also. It is also stated that case was adjudicated by the Collector of Customs (Judicial), Madras vide order dated 5-3-1993. Provisional assessment was made in respect of five bills of entry, and as detailed in the working sheet, Rs. 1, 82, 52, 608/- plus Rs. 1, 54, 63, 754/- is assessed to be recovered as duty, payable on the goods, on merits. THE details of which were given including the details regarding the redemption fine imposed, and also the penalty imposed. It is further alleged that on receipt of information that the Commissioner of Customs, Madras had decided the case by order dated 5-3-1993, the petitioner contacted his officer, who wrote a letter on 15-4-1993 to the 7th respondent for sanction of the advance reward for the duty. THE petitioner alleged that various correspondence took place in this regard and ultimately, on 6-11-1993, the Department sanctioned a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs as advance reward.

(3.) IN appeal counter and re-joinder to counter are also filed. Vacating stay petition is also filed.