Page 112 - ELT_1st July 2020_Vol 373_Part 1

22 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

6-2018 enclosing copy of the renewed Drug Licence. He also placed
the original renewed Drug Licence before the Adjudicating Authority
to prove its authenticity. On scrutiny of the renewed Drug Licence, it
is found that Shri Satya Ranjan Saha, Licensee of Universal Drug Cen-
tre, had been granted the drug licence number - 10,931 on 30-1-1996
which was subsequently renewed for the period from 1-1-2012 to 31-
12-2016 on 10-2-2014. It is thus evident that on the date of seizure i.e.
on 1-4-2012, Shri Satya Ranjan Saha’s dealing in the codeine based
cough syrup were covered by the said Drug Licence though the copy
of the same was not available with him as it was issued much later i.e.
on 10-2-2014 by the Licensing Authority.
13. I am therefore of the opinion that the purchase of the codeine based
cough syrup made by Shri Satya Ranjan Saha, Proprietor of Universal
Drug Centre, Agartala was a valid one and there is no evidence to
prove his involvement in the illegal act of exportation of the same
through Agartala. Hence, there is no reason to penalise Shri Satya
Ranjan Saha under Sections 114(iii) and 117 of the Customs Act, 1962.
ORDER
14. In view of the discussions made in Paras 10 and 11 above, I refrain
from imposing any penalty under the provisions of the Customs Act,
1962 on Shri Satya Ranjan Saha, Proprietor of M/s. Universal Drug
Centre, Ronaldsay Road, Agartala.”
4. By the said order thus the adjudicating authority deleted the person-
al penalty against the petitioner for the reasons stated in the above quoted por-
tion. He, however, did not state anything about the confiscation of the goods.
The petitioner thereupon approached the Appellate Commissioner who disposed
the appeal by an order dated 7-12-2018. He was of the opinion that the adjudicat-
ing authority had deleted the penalty but not passed any order on confiscation of
the goods. Thus, there was no valid order providing for the confiscation and,
therefore, even without filing appeal the petitioner could have approached the
competent authority for release of the goods. With these remarks, the appeal was
disposed of. The petitioner thereupon approached the Assistant Commissioner
of Customs under letter dated 21-1-2019 and requested for release of the goods
failing which he requested for payment of a sum of Rs. 42,28,260 which was the
value of the goods in question. On 8-4-2019 the Assistant Commissioner wrote to
the petitioner and stated that the seized goods were already disposed of by way
of destruction after the date of expiry of the goods. Thereafter serving a legal
demand notice for payment of sum of Rs. 42,28,260 with interest, the petitioner
filed this petition.
5. Appearing for the petitioner Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. K.N.
Bhattacharjee submitted that the Customs authorities have acted wholly arbitrar-
ily and illegally. Even while the appeal of the petitioner was pending, the goods
were destroyed. Such destruction was carried out without any notice to the peti-
tioner. It was the duty of the Customs authorities to either have returned the
goods or auctioned it in the market so that if the petitioner ultimately succeeded,
the sale price could be returned to the petitioner. In this context, he has relied on
certain decisions reference of which would be made at a later stage.
6. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the department opposed the
petition contending that the adjudicating authority had passed an order which
was bona fide. At first stage the Appellate Commissioner had confirmed such
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st July 2020  112