The Meghalaya High Court has directed the customs commissioner to refund Rs. 60 lakh for destroying seized betel nuts. The petitioner prayed for provisional release of the goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act 1962, which was not granted.
Smt. Laltanpuii, the petitioner filed the writ petition seeking a refund of the value of the seized goods and other appropriate orders. The petitioner contended that the customs commissioner, by destroying the seized betel nuts, is liable to refund the value of the goods, which were assessed at the time of seizure at Rs. 88 lakhs, along with interest, as may be decided by the Court, from the date of the order passed by the CESTAT. The department was bound to pay the value of goods assessed at the time of the seizure and is entitled to a refund.
On an appeal by the petitioner before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ), the Tribunal set aside the seizure and allowed the appeal. The order of the CESTAT on an appeal by the respondent and was further affirmed by the Supreme Court vide order dated October 31, 2022, wherein the SLP against the order dated October 28, 2022, of the Court was dismissed. The customs commissioner did not implement the orders passed by the Tribunal and the seized goods had been destroyed during the pre-trial stage.
The department contended that the betelnuts were destroyed since they were unfit for human consumption, and as per the disposal manual of the Customs Department, commissioners have full powers to order the destruction of goods such as foodstuff, spices, and other goods that are unfit for human consumption, amongst others. As the State Public Health Laboratory had found it unfit for human consumption, the betel nuts were destroyed and therefore could not be provisionally released to the petitioner.
A single bench of Justice H. S. Thangkhiew has observed that the Tribunal found that the goods were neither imported nor proved to be smuggled. The goods of the petitioner, betelnuts weighing 32 MT, had been seized by the customs commissioner. The petitioner prayed for provisional release of the goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act 1962, which was not granted.
While allowing the petition, the court directed the customs commissioner to refund the amount of Rs. 60 Lakhs to the writ petitioner on sufficient proof of identity being provided, within 8 weeks.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
