RAJESH LAPANG Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), NORTH EASTERN REGION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition is based on the claim of the writ petitioner, namely, Shri Rajesh Lapang, that he was the owner of certain goods (betel nuts), which were seized by the Customs authorities and later publicly auctioned. Based on such claim, he has approached this Court by filing the instant application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a mandatory direction upon the concerned Customs authorities to release the auction sale proceeds of the seized goods based on his refund application dated 22nd December, 2017. The seized goods (betel nuts) were confiscated by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Shillong, and sold in public auction. The sale proceeds amounts to Rs.66,51,40/-. This amount is lying deposited with the State Bank of India, Guwahati.

(2.) An Order-in-Original was passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) dated 3rd January, 2017, which was subsequently set aside by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Eastern Zonal Bench, Kolkata, in terms of its order dated 1st December, 2017. The records reveal that the writ petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing a writ petition, being WP(C) No. 131 of 2018. In that writ petition also, the writ petitioner had applied for refund of sale proceeds of the confiscated goods which were later sold in public auction. The earlier Division Bench of this Court, while rendering its order dated 16th November, 2018, was pleased to observe, inter alia, as follows:-

(3.) The same Division Bench on that date took up a statutory appeal filed by the Customs authorities under section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, being Customs Appeal No. 3 of 2018, in respect of the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) dated 1st December, 2017. It appears that an issue was raised before that Bench by the respondent (being the writ petitioner herein) to the effect that the learned Tribunal had not returned any finding regarding genuineness of the claim of the so-called owner. The Division Bench in paragraph 9 of its order proceeded to observe as follows: