The customs authorities are accountable for unauthorized auction of confiscated goods and must adhere to principles of natural justice and customs regulations.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution claims for directions to payment of the declared value of imported goods that were confiscated, by an order of the respondent customs authorities, and later sold at a vastly reduced price. The confiscation order was later set aside. The petitioner asks for an appropriate restitution of the money equivalent of the goods so sold.

2. The brief facts are that the petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 509, Naurang House, KG Marg, New Delhi. It had filed Bill of Entry No. 7687005 dated 17.08.2012 through CHA, M/s Kinship Agency (P) Ltd. for clearance of consignment - “Transmitter Broadcasting Equipment Sub-System (Data processing unit with transmitting capabilities for Broadcasting), Software and other Standard Accessories” (hereafter “the imported articles”). The assessable value of the goods was declared at Rs. 51,70,619/- and it was submitted by the petitioner, that import under this heading was free as in terms of the policy and no WPC license is required.

3. The articles were imported under Commercial Invoice No.2012-0730 dated 1 August, 2012. Upon arrival in India, the goods were examined under First Check to ascertain the correct nature of the goods. The quantity was found to be compliant with the Invoice and packing list. The Petitioner, had, under cover of its letter submitted to the Assistant Commissioner (Customs), the following information/documents:

(a) Various Modes of Operations;

(b) An overview of the working;

(c) Platform Overview;

(d) Technical Specification Date Sheet;

(e) Features and Advantages.

4. The petitioner had upon being queried by the customs authorities, explained the functioning of the equipment and that it is meant for one to one communication between the field reporter and the studio. It was also explained that the signal that is captured by devices such as Cameras (not part of the equipment), processes the signal and broadcasts to the audience. Thus, the device is merely a communication part using GSM network for transmission and thus, may be classified under CTH 8517. However, the goods were not cleared by the customs authority and it was alleged by the respondent that on perusal of the catalogue it was found that the goods under import are live transmitted for live television broadcasting type. As per the technical specification, the equipment works on cellular frequency Ethernet and Wifi network connections; that the goods under import are not broadcast equipment subsystem as declared by the imported, but complete equipment in itself which has the facility to transmit live video/audio and other data for broadcasting; is specifically classifiable under CTH 85255020 and is not permitted to be imported except against the license issued by the WPC wing of the Ministry of Telecommunication and Information Technology.

5. The respondent by its order dated 25.10.2012 directed absolute confiscation of the goods as according to it, the importer had failed to produce the requisite license from the DGFT and the WPC, and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 lakh on the petitioner under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Petitioner aggrieved by the order assailed it by an appeal and stay application before the CESTAT (“the tribunal”) in New Delhi. During pendency of the appeal the respondent was restrained from disposing off the goods. However, despite this restraint, the respondent auctioned off the goods. The tribunal allowed the appeal and by order dated 29.01.2014 set aside the impugned order of 25.10.2012.

6. The petitioner submits that no notice was served on it before auctioning off of the goods, and it had not waived the issuance of such notice. The Commissioner in the impugned order had observed that the Show Cause notice was waived by the petitioner’s letter dated 28.09.2012, which is denied as false. It is pointed out that in that letter, the petitioner had s