IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
P. B. BAJANTHRI and PURNENDU SINGH, JJ.
LPA No. 383 of 2011 in CWJC No.2221 of 2005
(2.11.2022)
Commissioner of Customs,
Patna Veer Chand Patel Path,
Central Revenue Building,
Patna ... Appellant
vs.
Krishna Bahadur Chhetri
& Ors. ... Respondents
Customs Act, 1962 – Sections 150 and 14 – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Auction of seized betel nuts – Direction for refund of amount of seized betel nut goods and its auctioned sum in terms of seizure report – Single Judge should have rejected writ petition at threshold that disputed issues cannot be decided by writ Court – Respondent-petitioner had a remedy before Trial Court in adjudicating the matter – Writ petition filed by respondent-petitioner is not maintainable – Respondent-petitioner cannot claim sum of Rs. 21,68,100/- in terms of approximate value assigned by seizure of the goods authority as approximate value is not in terms of any material information – Respondent-petitioner cannot disown his self declaration of valuation of goods at Rs. 8,59,125/- and it is corroborated by further material – Order of Single Judge set aside – L.P.A. allowed. (Paras 21, 23, 24, 29 and 30)
Shubhas Jain Vs. Rajeshwari Shivam, 2021 SCC Online SC 562 – Relied.
LPA 913 of 2003 decided on 25.10.2010 ; LPA 813 of 2011 decided on 31.08.2012 ; CWJC No. 10265 of 2011 decided on 02.03.2012 ; LPA 928 of 2012 decided on 20.07.2012 ; SLP No. 12157 of 2011 decided on 01.08.2011 – Distinguished.
P. B. Bajanthri, J.—In the instant LPA the appellant - Department of Customs has prayed for the following relief:—
“That this appeal is directed against the order dated 25.1.2011 passed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.N. Hussain in C.W.J.C. No. 2221 of 2005 whereby and where under the writ application has been allowed directing the respondents to pay Rs. 14,63,684 within four months and also to pay the interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of seizure upto the date of payment of the entire amount. It has further been directed that any loss accrued to the department of revenue may be compensated by deducting the amount of loss from the pocket of the authority due to whose mistake the public exchequer has been burden.”
2. The respondent Krishna Bahadur Chhetri had filed writ application in which he has prayed for the following relief:—
“That this is an application, praying for issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction to the respondent-authorities to make payment of the difference/balance amount Rs. 14,63,684 to the petitioner alongwith lawful interest accrued thereby out of assessed and admitted value of the goods at the time of seizure (Rs. 21,68,100/-) minus the sale proceeds refunded to the petitioner (Rs. 7,04,416/-) alongwith interest and for any other relief or reliefs the petitioner is entitled in the eye of law.”
3. Respondent is into betel nuts trading business. He was transporting betel nuts from Siliguri to Delhi via State of Bihar. The truck was intercepted by the Customs Department of the State of Bihar and goods and truck were ceased by the Customs Department. To that effect seizure memo/report was prepared on 22.01.1999 vide Annexure - 1 to the writ petition wherein the Customs Authority taken note of betel nuts quantity to the extent of 22,275 kgs (net 21,681 kgs) and it has been approximately valued at Rs. 21,68,100/-.
4. Similarly, truck bearing registration number AS-25- 4308 was valued at Rs. 8,00,000/-. Such seizure of goods and truck of the respondent was subject matter of adjudication order no. 8/CC/ADJ/2000 dated 16.11.2000 by which the Commissioner of Customs passed the following order:—
“ORDER
1. I order for confiscation of betelnuts of third country origin weighing 21,681 Kgs. valued at Rs. 21,68,100/- seized in this case under Sec.111(d) of Customs Act, 1962 for the detailed reasons recorded above.
2. I order for confiscation of the truck bearing Regn. No. AS-25-4308 under Sec. 115 (2) of the Customs Act,1962 for the detailed reasons recorded above. However, I give the owner an option to redeem the said truck on payment of a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakhs) under Sec. 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. I also order that Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakhs) paid towards cash security deposited at the time of provisional release should be appropriated towards the fine so levied.
3. I impose the following persons/firms personal penalties on the under Sec.112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 for detailed reasons recorded above.
i. Sri Vijay Singh Daga
Managing Director of
M/s Bikaner Assam Roadlines
India Ltd.
(address given in the notice) Rs.2,00,000/-
(Rs. Two Lakhs only)
ii. Sri Krishna Bahadur Chhetriya
Prop. of M/s Dahal Agro Products
Dhumpara
(address given in the notice) Rs.2,00,000/-
(Rs. Two Lakhs only)
iii. Mrs. Kamala Devi Baid,
Prop. of M/s Baid Brothers Nokha(Raj.)
(address given in the notice) Rs.2,00,000/-
(Rs. Two Lakhs only)
iv. Shri Jitend a Kr. Jat.
Driver of the seized truck
(address given in the notice) Rs.10,000/-
( Rs. Ten thousand only)
v. Sri Sanjeev Kumar,
Khalasi of the seized truck
(address given in the notice) Rs.5,000/-
(Rs. Five thousand only)
The financial status of the accused persons/firms and the gravity of offence committed by them have been taken into consideration in determining the quantum of penalty imposed upon them.
(B.R.MEHRA)
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
PATNA. ”
5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of the Commissioner dated 16.11.2000, respondent invoked remedy before the
The burden of proof in customs seizures lies with the appellant, who must demonstrate improper valuation or legality of confiscation; failure to substantiate claims results in dismissal of appeal.
The burden of proof for non-notified goods under the Customs Act lies with the Customs Department to establish smuggling, which must be supported by cogent evidence.
A writ petition challenging seizure under the Customs Act may be considered non-maintainable if a related and previously adjudicated matter on jurisdictional grounds remains unresolved.
Customs authorities must prove undervaluation with substantial evidence, including contemporaneous import prices, rather than relying solely on unattested initial export declarations.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.