Page 160 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

838 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

direction of the Tribunal. Section 150 of the Customs Act, 1962 provides a proce-
dure for sale of imported goods and application of sale proceeds thereof. The
said section reads :-
(a) Section 150 : Procedure for sale of imported goods and application
of sale proceeds thereof. -
“(1) Where any goods not being confiscated goods are to be sold under
any provisions of this Act, they shall, after notice to the owner thereof, be
sold by public auction or by tender or with the consent of the owner in any
other manner.
(2) The proceeds of any such sale shall be applied -
(a) firstly to the payment of the expenses of the sale,
(b) next to the payment of the freight and other charges, if any,
payable in respect of the goods sold, to the carrier, if notice of
such charges has been given to the person having custody of
the goods,
(c) next to the payment of the duty, if any, on the goods sold,
(d) next to the payment of the charges in respect of the goods sold
due to the person having the custody of the goods,
(e) next to the payment of any amount due from the owner of the
goods to the Central Government under the provisions of this
Act or any other law relating to customs, and the balance, if
any, shall be paid to the owner of the goods :
Provided that where it is not possible to pay the balance of sale proceeds, if
any, to the owner of the goods within a period of six months from the date
of the sale of such goods or such further period as the Principal Commis-
sioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs may allow, such balance of
sale proceeds shall be paid to the Central Government.
10. The above Section prescribes on the manner in which the proceeds
of the sale of the confiscated goods has to be appropriated and adjusted. After
adjustment of the proceeds, balance if any, has to be paid back to the owner of
the goods. Since there was delay in paying the amount to the owner. Section 150
of the Customs Act, 1962 was amended and the above proviso was inserted vide
Section 52 of the Finance Act, 2011 with effect from 8-4-2011.
11. In the present case, imports were made during the month of April
1998. The importer apparently abandoned the goods. Under these circumstances,
the petitioner sent repeated representations to the respondents to permit the peti-
tioner to either take back the goods to Hong Kong or to sell the goods to any oth-
er buyer in India in accordance with the provisions of the EXIM Policy as in force
at the relevant point of time. However, that was not allowed.
12. The petitioner had therefore filed a writ petition before this Court in
W.P. No. 8867 of 1998. By an order, dated 4-8-1998, liberty was given to the peti-
tioner to approach the Tribunal.
13. The Tribunal by its order, dated 27-7-1999 remanded the case back
to the 1st respondent to consider the issue afresh as the respondents had already
auctioned the imported goods. Instead of refunding the balance amount after
due adjustment and appropriation the respondents have dragged on the pro-
ceedings for over a period of two decades. Therefore, the question is whether the
petitioner should now be relegated to work out his remedy in a civil Court as
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  160