The Customs Department must establish its case, and the court does not act as an executing court for consequential directions.

1. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayers :-

“(a) to direct the respondents to return impugned 50 gold biscuits which were seized by Customs Department on 2.6.1993, to the petitioner forthwith:

(b) in the alternative, if respondents are unable to return the gold biscuits, they may be directed to pay immediately Rs.3 Lacs against the undervaluing of price of gold biscuits along with interest @ 18% P.A. on the principal amount of Rs.27,00,689/- from the date of seizure i.e.2.6.1993 till the date the payment is made to the petitioner:

(c) Any other appropriate order(s) which the Hon'ble Court deems just and proper to pass in favour of the petitioner, including the cost, may also kindly be passed.”

2. In a search of a vehicle (blue coloured Mahindra Jeep), intercepted by the officers of the Customs Division, Jodhpur, gold biscuits were recovered and seized on Ahmedabad Road on 1.6.1993 and 2.6.1993. The contraband gold was recovered from the middle seat, fitted with two screws, in a false cavity, which contained two heavy packets wrapped with electrical insulation/adhesive tape. The Customs Department initiated the proceedings and seized the gold under Section 111(b) and (d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The gold was finally confiscated under Section 115 of the Customs Act, 1962 with penalties, and was sold. A criminal case was also registered, which was decided by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur. In prosecution case No.68/94, the accused were found 'not guilty', and were discharged on 4.6.1997 under Section 135(1)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. The sale consideration of the gold however, was not directed to be released, as the matter as pending before the court of law with regard to the proceedings of seizure and confiscation.

3. The appeal against the order (original) dated 13.2.1996 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Jaipur, was allowed by the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (CEGAT), vide its order dated 30.12.1997, with the findings that the Department was not able to discharge its burden of proof, that the documents of valid possession shown and relied upon were not genuine, or that they did not relate to the seized gold. It was held by the CEGAT that nothing was brought to show that the documents were false or manipulated, or that the persons shown in the documents were not the real persons, who had imported the said goods.

4. The CEGAT, after allowing the appeal on recording satisfaction that the Department had not established the allegations, nor the preponderance of probabilities against the appellants was such that the confiscation and penalties be maintained. Granting benefit of doubt to the appellants and setting aside the impugned order, all the three appeals were allowed, with further directions:-“The three appellants will be entitled to the consequential benefits.”

5. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the consequential benefits would include the difference between the market price of the gold and the amount, for which the gold was sold, to be returned to the appellants with interest on the amount.

6. In the reply, it is stated that the consequential benefits, as claimed by the petitioner, in pursuance to order of CEGAT dated 30.12.1997, were neither quantified, nor any direction was issued to assess and to pay the difference of the price of gold, on the date when it was seized, and thereafter sold, and interest.

7. The CEGAT was required to assess, compute and issue directions for any consequential benefits, which it had intended to be paid in the order. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not act as an executing court for any consequential directions. If no specific orders were passed with regard to consequential directions, the petitioner may approach appropriate authorities for its assessment/quantification and payment, in accordance with law.

8. T