Page 45 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

2020 ] LANGUAGE OF THE DIVINE IS SILENCE A199
Be as it may, this paper tries to highlight certain issues that emerges from
the available facts such as non-issuance of a notice for disposal of the confiscated
gold/gold ornaments especially before the expiry of the appeal period and dis-
posal of the gold/gold ornaments with undue speed, lack of a review order by
the competent authority against allowing redemption of more than 6 Kg. of
gold/gold ornaments confiscated when the golden rule adopted by the original
adjudicating authorities is absolute confiscation even for gold ornaments worn in
person alleging non-declaration for smaller quantities. Further the sale proceeds
are allowed to be refunded after deducting only the penalty imposed.
It is no more res integra that when goods imported are sold by Customs
or other authorities for home consumption, its sale proceeds includes applicable
customs duty. When the title of the goods is vested with the Central Government
due to lack of any appellate order setting aside confiscation of the goods, the sale
proceeds can be refunded to the person from whom the goods were seized and
confiscated only after deduction of the redemption fine imposed along with duty
payable and penalty imposed.
The cited case did not discuss any of the above issues but relied on a
judgment of the Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition No. 32340 of 2016 in the follow-
ing words : “There is no disputation or disagreement before this Court as be-
tween both the Learned Counsel that the instant case stands covered by the earli-
er order and there is no disagreement that earlier order made by a Hon’ble Single
Judge has been given a legal quietus. It has not only been given legal quietus, but
has been acted upon and refund after deducting penalty has also been given to
the writ petitioner therein pursuant to the earlier order”. The cited Writ Petition
No. is 32340 of 2016. http://www.judis.nic.in informs that the writ petition W.P.
No. 32340 of 2016 and W.M.P. No. 28052 of 2016 was decided on 30-11-2016.
However, the case law refers in the cited decision is about W.M.P. 5088, decided
on 2-3-2017 in W.P. No. 32340. No such order is forthcoming on search.
W.P. No. 32340 of 2016 and W.M.P. No. 28052 of 2016 were filed by one
Shri Mohammed Omar Shaik for execution of the order of the Commissioner
(Appeals) allowing redemption of gold. Para 3 of the said decision explains the
facts of that case.
3. The said appeal was filed by the petitioner, challenging the order-in-
original passed by the 2nd respondent dated 11-9-2015 in and by which the
2nd respondent ordered absolute confiscation of two numbers of Tola Gold
Bars totally weighing 233 gms. and imposed penalty of ` 60,000/-. In the ap-
peal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-I), the order of confisca-
tion was set aside with an option of redemption of the same for home con-
sumption on payment of redemption fine of ` 1,80,000/-. The order imposing
penalty of ` 60,000/- was not interfered with by the Commissioner of Cus-
toms (Appeals-I). Therefore, the petitioner seeks for implementation.
After hearing the Hon’ble Court ordered to release the gold subject to decision of
the revisional authority as follows :-
(a) The petitioner shall pay the redemption fine of ` 1,80,000/- (Rupees
One Lakh Eighty Thousand Only), the penalty of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees
Sixty Thousand Only) and the duty of the goods that may be deter-
mined by the respondents;
(b) Apart from that, the petitioner shall furnish a bank guarantee for a
sum of ` 75,000/- and keep the bank guarantee alive till the disposal
of the revision petition by the Revisional Authority (Central Govern-
ment); and
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  45