Page 229 - ELT_15th July 2020_Vol 373_Part 2

2020 ] FIROZ ALAM v. UNION OF INDIA 211

(iv) Immediately thereafter on 23-9-2012, the petitioner filed a claim be-
fore the Assistant Commissioner, Customs, Forbesganj for the re-
lease of the goods along with all relevant documents, but the Assis-
tant Commissioner, Customs without verifying the ownership and
the claim of the petitioner, placed the goods on auction on 24-9-
2012. It appears that a notice dated 23-9-2012 was also issued under
Section 150 of the Act, vide Letter No. 7615.
(v) On 24-9-2012, vide Letter No. 7527, the respondent-authorities, on
their own will, decided to withhold the auction for one more day
and directed the petitioner to furnish cash security of the full value
of the goods and also execute a bond for the release of the said
goods, subject to the condition that the Goat Skin will be kept intact
and will not be sold or used otherwise and will be preserved in the
same condition till finalization of the case.
(vi) Accordingly, the petitioner being aggrieved by the action of the re-
spondents in the issuance of Annexures-4 and 5 has assailed the
same before this Court.
3. It has been asserted by the petitioner that from a conjoint reading of
Annexure-5 with Annexure-4, it is evident that the same has been issued me-
chanically and suffers from total non-application of mind. Furthermore, it ap-
pears that the respondent with some ulterior motive was in a hurry to dispose of
the highly perishable nature of goods and also because they were also exposing
public to an unhealthy pungent smell causing nausea and vomiting.
4. It was contended that there was an error apparent on the face of An-
nexure-5 as the same officer while noting that the goods are highly perishable in
nature was directing the petitioner to deposit 100% cash security but also at the
same time, asking him to execute a bond that he would not dispose of the Goat
Skin and will maintain the Goat Skin in the same condition till the finalization of
the case, though the same is a highly perishable commodity.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that the me-
chanical approach of the respondents is evident from the fact that the letter, as
contained in Annexure-5, neither discloses any amount for the cash security,
which has been deliberately left blank. Furthermore, the authorities have record-
ed that the Goat Skin had been purchased from one Bishmillah Hide & Skin, little
realizing that the petitioner himself is the owner of the said M/s. Bishmillah
Hide & Skin. When the petitioner having not responded to the aforesaid letter
(Annexure-5), has come to know that his goods have been sold, without even
following the procedure as prescribed under Section 110A of the Act. It was fur-
ther contended that the goods of the petitioner could not be sold under the pro-
visions of Section 150 of the Act for the reasons that the money which was recov-
ered after the sale could not be used for any purpose, for which the sale is au-
thorized under the Act.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that the action
of the respondents also stands vitiated as no seizure memo was ever given to the
petitioner nor was any ground for seizure ever communicated. It was thus stated
that it being settled law that the validity of the seizure is to be ascertained on the
basis of the materials available with the seizing officer at the time of the seizure,
no subsequent information could be of any avail to the respondents. Thus, the
loss rendered to the petitioner deserves to be compensated and injury met to him
has to be remedied by refunding the sale proceeds of the seized items.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th July 2020  229