( 1 ) THIS case is a classic example of how simple matters get complicated by authorities. As factual scenario would go to show to a large extent that Customs officials were largely responsible for the confusion and impasse created.

( 2 ) IN a nutshell the factual position asserted, by petitioner and largely intraversed is as follows:

ONE Mauve and Crimson imported consignment of toys under- invoice dated 12. 2. 1999 for US $ 10,11160 and filed Bill of Entry dated 26. 2. 1999. The said concern could not make payment to the consignor of the imported toys. Shipper approached the petitioner to buy the materials. The Shipping Agent filed an undertaking with the Commissioner of Customs, Inland Container Depot (in short the Commissioner) and permission was accorded to amend the Import General Manifest in the name of the petitioner. On 11. 6. 1993, Bill of entry in favour of the petitioner was filed with the Commissioner. On 15. 6. 1999 the said authority directed checking of the goods. On 28. 6. 1999 the goods were examined by the officials of the Customs Department. On 2. 8. 1999 petitioner requested for a personal hearing which was granted. During the hearing, the petitioner submitted that the declared value is genuine, bonafide and real value and not suppressed, and there is no reason to enhance the value as proposed by the Commissioner. However, Joint Commissioner vide order dated 2. 8. 1999 enchanced the value from Rs. 4,34,835/ to Rs. 6,44,997. 00 and further ordered for confiscation under Section 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 (in short, the Act ). However, he imposed redemption fine of Rs. 2,00,000. 00 and a penalty of Rs 50,000. 00 in addition to duty of Rs. 1,80,000. 00 Thirty days time was granted to the petitioner to deposit the fine and the penalty. Strangely no adjudication order has yet been issued to the petitioner. Be that as it may, according to the petitioner, to avoid demurrage, on coming to know of the amounts fixed petitioner deposited customs duty, redemption fine of Rs. 2 lakhs and penalty of Rs. 50,000. 00. According to it, what was required to be done in terms of the adjudication order, even though not issued, has been complied with. On 13. 8. 1999, the petitioner paid detention charges of Rs. 1,82,772. 00 towards container detention charges to shipping agents. After having taken necessary steps for release of the goods, when the petitioner inspected the container it was found to be open. The petitioner made frantic enquiries about the whereabouts of imported goods but nobody was willing to tell anything. Subsequently it surfaced that the imported goods were sold at a price of Rs. 2,78,000. 00 on 7. 8. 1999 itself, whereas invoice price of Rs. 434835. 00 was enchanced by the Customs authority to Rs. 6,44,997. 00. Despite the fact that the petitioner was given time upto 1. 9. 1999 to make payment and in fact payment had been made on 13. 8. 1999, goods were sold on 7. 8. 1999. It is of vital importance that on 10. 8,1999, Superintendent (Disposal) of the Commissioner s office vide letter of even date sought for No Objection Certificates from (a) Appraising Officer, (b) Superintendent (Law), Pre-Adjudiction and (c) Office Supdt. IGM, and said No Objection was sought upto 31. 8. 1999 for contemplated auction/disposal of goods. Superintendent (Disposal) unmistakably acted with oblique motive, as the goods are shown to have been disposed of on 7. 8. 1999 i. e. prior to issuance of the letter calling for no objection. On 16. 8. 19 the petitioner wrote a letter to the Container Corporation of India Ltd. (in short, Corporation) wanting to know the official status of the goods but no response was received. On 23. 8. 1999, the petitioner sent another letter to the said Corporation to know whereabouts of the imported goods. By letter dated 25. 8. 1999 the Corporation informed that the goods have been handed over to the Customs Authorities on 7. 8. 1999. Again the petitioner made enquiries from the Assist