LALTANPUII Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts of the case are that the goods of the petitioner namely betelnuts weighing 32 MT had been seized by the respondent No. 2, on 28/10/2017. The petitioner thereafter had prayed for provisional release of the goods under Sec. 110A of the Customs Act 1962, which however was not granted. On an appeal by the petitioner before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Kolkata, the learned Tribunal by order dtd. 9/12/2020, set aside the impugned seizure and allowed the appeal. The said order of the CESTAT on an appeal by the respondent No. 2, was then affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dtd. 28/10/2021, and was further affirmed by the Supreme Court vide order dtd. 31/10/2022, wherein the SLP against the order dtd. 28/10/2021, of this Court was dismissed. However, the orders passed by the Tribunal, which have been affirmed by this Court and the Supreme Court, were not implemented by the respondent No. 2, and in the meanwhile the seized goods had been destroyed during the pre-trial stage. Being aggrieved thereby the petitioner by way of the instant writ petition is praying for refund of value of the seized goods and for other appropriate orders.

(2.) Mr. N. Dasgupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent No. 2, by destroying the seized betelnuts are liable to refund the value of the goods, which were assessed at the time of seizure at Rs.88.00 Lakhs along with interest, as may be decided by this Court, from the date of the order passed by the learned Tribunal (CESTAT) Kolkata, i.e. 9/12/2020. In support of his case, the learned counsel has relied upon various decisions of the High Court of Calcutta and Delhi, wherein it has been held that department was bound to pay the value of goods assessed at the time of seizure. He therefore submits that the petitioner is therefore entitled to similar relief.

(3.) Dr. N. Mozika, learned DSGI assisted by Ms. A. Pradhan, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the betelnuts were destroyed inasmuch as, it was unfit for human consumption and as per the Disposal Manual of the Customs Department, Commissioners have full powers to order destruction of goods, such as food stuff, spices and other goods which are unfit for human consumption amongst others. He submits that as the State Public Health Laboratory had found the same unfit for human consumption vide a report dtd. 11/12/2017, the betelnuts were destroyed, and therefore could not be provisionally released to the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner on 24/9/2018, had requested for provisional release of the seized 32 MT betelnuts, for non-consumption used and has prayed for reduction of price of the damaged seized betelnuts at Rs.96.00 per kg, and as such, was fully aware about their value and condition, and therefore the amount as claimed is untenable. He lastly contends that in the instant case, the goods were destroyed and were not disposed of by way of sale auction, and the respondents have not received any revenue by disposing off the said goods by way of destruction.