Case Law Details
Kefco Exim Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Additional Commissioner of Customs (Calcutta High Court)
The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Kefco Exim Pvt. Ltd v. The Additional Commissioner of Customs, CC(P), Kolkata, W.P.A 116 of 2022 directed the Customs authority to compensate the petitioner for the value of the seized goods, as the confiscation of the goods, based on allegations of being of foreign origin and smuggled, was deemed illegal. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) had determined that there was insufficient evidence to establish the foreign origin or smuggled nature of the goods, and thus, there was no justifiable reason for their confiscation under Section 111(b) & (d) of the Customs Act, 1962.
Following the declaration of the seizure as illegal, the petitioner sought compensation for the value of the goods as of the date of seizure, as the customs department had failed to compensate them for the destroyed goods.
The respondent authority argued that, despite the appellate authority setting aside the adjudication order and deeming the confiscation and penalty orders unsustainable in law, the customs authority was not obliged to return the hazardous goods or pay their value. The goods were claimed to be unfit for human consumption, resulting in their destruction. Furthermore, the respondent contended that, even with the acceptance of the appellate authority’s order, the customs authority was not bound to pay the petitioner the value of the goods due to their hazardous nature.
The Hon’ble High Court deemed the department’s contention as highly unreasonable and arbitrary. It noted that the subordinate authority had defied the order of the appellate authority, without filing an appeal, and had refused to provide consequential relief to the petitioner. The court held that the department’s actions of neither returning the seized goods to the petitioner nor paying the value of the goods as of the seizure date were arbitrary and illegal. As a result, the court disposed of the petition by instructing the Customs authority to pay the petitioner the value of the goods as of the seizure date within four weeks of the court’s order.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
