COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) Vs. AHSAN WARIS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) G.A. No. 1884 of 2014 is the application for condo nation of delay in preferring the appeal. Causes shown having been found sufficient, the application for condo nation of delay is allowed. This appeal has been preferred by the Customs Department against the order dated 5th March, 2014 passed in WP No. 951 of 2013 (Ahsan Waris v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) & Ors, 2014 305 ELT 78 (Cal.)], whereby the authorities have been directed to pay the petitioner the differential amount between the assessed value of the goods at the time of seizure being Rs. 7,75,792/- and the already refunded sum of Rs. 2,28,010/-.

(2.) Mr. Bharadwaj, learned Advocate on behalf of the Customs Authorities, argued since the goods were perishable goods and after confiscation the goods became the property of the Central Government as vested under Section 126 of the Customs Act, 1962, the authority concerned had no other option, but to sell the same at the price of Rs. 2,28,010/- which was refunded to the petitioner. He submitted the sale was duly made on 15th March, 2004 in a manner which subsequently came to be provided for by the circular dated 20th February, 2006 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, copy of which he has handed up. He submits applying depreciation on the value of the goods at the time of seizure, the petitioner would be entitled to the value of the sale proceeds thereof and nothing more on having the order of confiscation set aside in its appeal before the Tribunal.

(3.) It appears from the order impugned the question whether or not the sale was made contrary to the provisions or without any reasonable explanation was not gone into. The writ petitioner has not preferred any cross-objection against such finding. Therefore, the only question before us is as to whether the learned Single Judge was correct in directing the differential payment.