JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. D. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned counsel for the respondents in the Customs Department.

2. The petitioner is a trader in raw rubber which he procures from the small registered rubber growers in the Northeastern region and operates his business in the name and style of M/s Madona Agencies having its place of business at TRP Road, Machkhowa, Guwahati. In course of the business, there was a seizure under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short ‘the Act of 1962’) by the Customs authorities in respect of 2840.87 kg of raw rubber and the estimated rubber value of the seized raw rubber was stated to be Rs. 5,68,174/-@ of Rs. 200/-per kg. The seizure under Section 110 of the Act of 1962 resulted in a confiscation under Section 105 of the Act of 1962 as per the order dated 28.03.2013 of the Additional Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Shillong. Upon the seized goods being confiscated, they were subjected to an auction on 30.10.2014 and in the auction, the seized goods fetched a price of Rs. 1,45,000/-. Later on the seizure as well as the confiscation was set aside by the order dated 29.12.2014 in Order-in-appeal No. 76/CUS(A)/GHY/14 of the Commissioner (Appeal), Customs and Central Excise, Guwahati.

3. In the resultant circumstance, the petitioner claimed for a refund of the value of the goods that were seized and confiscated. The respondents in the Customs Department had offered the petitioner an amount of Rs. 1,55,000/-which includes the auction price of Rs. 1,45,000/-plus Rs. 10,000/- penalty that was earlier imposed. Being dissatisfied, the present writ petition is instituted with a claim that upon the seizure and the confiscation being set aside, the petitioner is entitled for a refund of the complete value of the goods and not the value as per the auction. Accordingly, reference is made to inventories of seized goods wherein the estimated value of the seized goods was stated to be Rs. 5,68,174/-.

4. In this respect, we take note of the order dated 23.05.2016 in WP(C) No. 3012/2016 of the Division Bench of this Court where the present petitioner was the petitioner therein and in that matter before the Division Bench, the same issue was raised by the petitioner that the estimated value of the seized goods was Rs. 5,68,174/- whereas the respondents in the Customs Department had sanctioned a refund amount of Rs. 1,55,000/-. In the order dated 23.05.2016 of the Division Bench, a representation of the petitioner dated 21.08.2015 was taken note of which was pending before the Customs authorities and accordingly, a direction was issued to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), NER Region, Shillong, to decide the representation dated 21.08.2015.

5. Consequent thereof, the order impugned in the present writ petition dated 12.07.2016 was passed. While disposing of the representation of the petitioner dated 21.08.2015, the Deputy Commissioner (Hqrs. Prev) in the Customs Department took note that by the said representation, the petitioner had asked for refund of the seizure value of the goods instead of the auction sale proceeds of the goods which were seized. The Deputy Commissioner also took note of the aspect that after the seizure and confiscation of the goods inasmuch as, the seized goods were of perishable nature, the Department initiated a disposal of the goods through public auction. It was specifically taken note of that the writ petitioner Rintu Bastian was intimated about the auction by letter C.No. VIII(25)1/DISP/MISC/ACG/2012/5202 dated 10.09.2014 by the Superintendent (Disposal), Guwahati Customs Division, Guwahati and that the writ petitioner had received the letter on 18.09.2014 and thereafter on 30.10.2014, the goods were disposed of through public auction to the highest bidder @ Rs. 1,45,000/-. In the order of the Deputy Commissioner, it had been also put on record that the seized and confiscated goods were sold through public auction on 30.10.20