D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) The seized goods were confiscated. The order of confiscation was challenged by the dealer successfully. The order of confiscation was set aside. Though section 150 of the Customs Act prescribes that the goods not confiscated can be sold only through auction or tender or by consent of the owner in any other manner after giving notice to the owner. That apart, ordinarily until finalization of the proceedings the goods could not be sold except under an ordor passed in connection with the proceedings or in case of perishable goods. However, in this case, the goods were not perishable. Still the department had sold the goods during the pendency of the appeal without following the legal formalities. Therefore, on account of being successful in the appeal, the dealer asked for return of the goods. The goods having been sold, the Customs Authority was disabled from returning the goods. The owner claimed for the value of the goods. The dispute related to the value of the goods. The dealer had given its value in a statement under section 108 at Rs. 2.40,000/- whereas the seizure value was noted at Rs. 9,09,200/-. 1.1. Now the question arose as to what price for the seized goods are to be paid to the dealer by the Customs Authority in the absence of the goods, which were supposed to be returned to the dealer. The learned Tribunal in its order dated 25th March, 2000 following three decisions of the Tribunul in Oswal Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise, 1988 (35) ELT 244 (Tribunal); Shyamlata Sharma, 1992 (57) ELT 415 (Tribunal) and U. Enowell Khonglan, 1991 (55) ELT 80 (Tribunal), held that the seizure value is to be returned not the market value. However, it had observed that it was not understood as to how such a high value goods could be sold by the revenue during the pendency of the appeal at such a lower rate, which is almost 1/8 of the seizure value. However, it is neither here nor there. The question:
(2.) The reference under section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 prior to its amendment (now section 130A) was admitted on the ground whether the injured party is entitled to payment of the market value of the goods prevalent at the time of the seizure valued at by the revenue in lieu of the goods having already been sold during the pendency of the appeal.
(3.) Both the learned Counsel had addressed the Court on the question elaborately. Various decisions have been cited. Decision by Jurisdictional High Court: Binding:;