Meghalaya High Court
Union Of India Represented By The … vs Smti. Laltanpuii on 13 March, 2025
Author: W. Diengdoh
Bench: W. Diengdoh
2025:MLHC:168-DB
Serial No.01 HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
Daily List AT SHILLONG
WA No. 43 of 2024
Date of CAV: 24.02.2025
Date of pronouncement: 13.03.2025
1. Union of India represented by the Secretary to the Government of
India, Department of Revenue, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), North East Region,
Customs House, 110, MG Road, Shillong 793001, Meghalaya.
...Appellants
- Vs -
Smti. Laltanpuii
Proprietor of Two Brothers,
T-4, T Section, Edenthar,
Aizawl, Mizoram 796007.
...Respondent
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice I.P. Mukerji, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
Appearance:
For the Appellants : Dr. N. Mozika, DSGI with
Ms. K. Gurung, Adv.
For the Respondent : Mr. N. Dasgupta, Adv. with
Mrs. A. Synrem, Adv.
i) Whether approved for Yes
reporting in Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No
in press:
For proper public information and transparency, any media
reporting this judgment is directed to mention the
composition of the bench by name of judges, while reporting
this judgment/order.
Page 1 of 8
2025:MLHC:168-DB
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon’ble, the Chief Justice)
This is an appeal from a judgment and order dated 27 th June,
2024. It was made by a learned single judge of this Court in the exercise
of his writ jurisdiction in the writ petition [WP(C) No. 192 of 2023].
This writ involves a very fine point of law.
The Appellant Customs authorities (the appellant/Customs)
seized 32 MT of betel nuts from the respondent on 29th October, 2017
on the ground that they were illegally imported and liable to be
confiscated and penal action under Section 124 of the Customs Act,
1962. This order of confiscation was challenged by the respondent
before the Tribunal constituted by the said Act (CESTAT). It ordered
release of the goods. The appellant filed a statutory appeal before the
High Court which affirmed the order of the Tribunal. The appellant
went up to the Supreme Court which did not interfere with this order.
The Special Leave Petition was dismissed by that court on 31 st October,
2022. Throughout this period from the seizure to the order of the
Supreme Court on 31st October, 2022, with the orders of CESTAT and
this Court intervening on 9th December, 2020 and 28th October, 2021
respectively, the appellant retained the goods. By the time the Supreme
Court disposed of the matter, the goods had been disposed of by the
Page 2 of 8
2025:MLHC:168-DB
appellant. The appellant said that the goods had become unfit for human
consumption and in the circumstances had to be destroyed.
The respondent preferred a writ petition before this Court with a
simple prayer for assessment of the seizure value of the goods and for
its payment by the appellant to the respondent together with interest.
The writ was heard by a learned single judge of this Court from
time to time. On 24th April, 2024 an interim order was passed which
recorded that the Tribunal had valued the goods at ₹88 lakhs. The
learned Deputy Solicitor General was instructed by the Court to take
instructions as to whether his client was willing to pay ₹60 lakhs which
the respondent had agreed to accept as the value of those goods.
The matter came up for final consideration before the learned
single judge on 27th June, 2024. On that day his lordship finally
disposed of the writ.
At the final hearing, a submission was advanced on behalf of the
appellant that it had destroyed the goods and not sold it or received any
consideration for it and hence not liable to pay any compensation.
After considering the submissions, the learned single judge
directed the appellant to pay ₹60 lakhs to the respondent within eight
weeks from the date of the order failing which they would have to pay
interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum.
Page 3 of 8
2025:MLHC:168-DB
The Customs is before us on appeal.
Before proceeding further with this matter, a few facts are very
relevant and need to be remunerated and re-examined.
The respondent claimed the betel nuts to be an indigenous
product of Mizoram. The appellant claimed they were illegally
imported. A large consignment of these betel nuts were seized by the
Customs on 29th October, 2017. After seizure and more particularly on
14th November, 2017, 4th January, 2018 and 15th January, 2018 by
representations, the respondent sought provisional release of the seized
goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962. They were not
released by the appellant. On 27th April, 2018, a show cause notice was
issued by the appellant under Section 124 of the said Act alleging illegal
importation, and asking the respondent to show cause why her
consignment should not be confiscated and penalty imposed on her. On
6th June, 2019, the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) NER,
Shillong in an order affirmed the allegations in the show cause notice.
On appeal, the Tribunal in Kolkata, CESTAT, on 9th December,
2020, allowed the appeal holding that the appellant has been unable to
prove that the goods were illegally imported and directed their release.
Page 4 of 8
2025:MLHC:168-DB
The appellant preferred an appeal before this Court under
Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962. On 28th October, 2021, this
Court affirmed the order of the Tribunal and dismissed the appeal.
The appellant did not stop there. They preferred a Special Leave
Petition before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 31 st
October, 2022.
According to the respondent, she had no information about the
status of the goods seized. On 13th January, 2021, she made an
application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the
Customs authority seeking information about the betel nuts. On 4th
February, 2021, the respondent was informed by the Deputy
Commissioner (A&R) that the goods being unfit for human
consumption had been destroyed by the Customs authority. The
annexures to the writ petition enclosing the documents appended to the
reply to the respondent’s said query are very significant.
The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Guwahati wrote to the
Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) NER, Shillong on 11th
February, 2019 on the following terms. The food analyst’s report of the
Government of Assam dated 11th December, 2017 and 28th March, 2018
accompanied by the laboratory test report dated 20th November, 2017
Page 5 of 8
2025:MLHC:168-DB
and 6th March, 2018 stated that the goods were “damaged having fungal
infestation and hence were not suitable for use of human consumption”.
Permission was sought to destroy the consignment of betel nuts
by dumping them in a huge pit within the office area of the Customs in
Guwahati or by fresh air waste management services. On 18 th February,
2019, the Superintendent (Hqrs. Disposal), Office of the Commissioner
of Customs (Preventive), NER, Shillong wrote to the Assistant
Commissioner Customs (P) Division, Guwahati that the Commissioner
of Customs had given permission for disposal of 109804 kgs of dry
betel nuts (which included the respondent’s goods as well as other
seized betel nuts of other owners) by dumping them in the said pit in the
office area of the Customs in Guwahati. The Assistant Commissioner,
Guwahati on 8th March, 2019 wrote to the Directorate of Revenue
Intelligence, Guwahati to hand over the said goods to his department for
disposal. It appears from a certificate issued by the Customs authorities
at page 123 of the paper-book that on 28th, 29th and 30th March, 2019 the
seized betel nuts value of which was shown as ₹88 lakhs were disposed
of by dumping them into the pit in the Customs premises at Guwahati.
First of all, there is clear admission by the appellant that as on the
date of seizure the value of the goods was ₹88 lakhs. From the date of
seizure up to the date of dumping of the goods in the pit about one and a
Page 6 of 8
2025:MLHC:168-DB
half years had elapsed. These goods were in the custody of the Customs.
They had an obligation to explain how the goods were or became unfit
for human consumption. If the goods at the time of seizure were unfit
for human consumption, they could not have been valued at ₹88 lakhs at
that point of time. Therefore, this condition was reached in the custody
of the Customs. Whether such deterioration was natural or due to some
action or inaction on the part of the Customs had to be explained by the
Customs authorities. The onus of proof was upon them. They have not
been able to discharge it.
Even if the reports of the expert agencies like food analyst and
the specialised laboratory made between December, 2017 and March,
2018 suggested that the goods were unfit for human consumption, still
the respondent ought to have been given a chance to be present when
the test was carried out or to be provided with a copy of the report to
seek second opinion or to take some steps with regard to it.
Most importantly, before destroying the goods, the respondent
ought to have been informed.
Now, that the Supreme Court has not interfered with the order for
release of the goods, the appellant has saddled itself with liability for
having disposed of the goods which belonged to the respondent, without
Page 7 of 8
2025:MLHC:168-DB
her notice or knowledge. In those circumstances, the appellant has made
itself liable to pay damages to her for loss of the goods.
As a Court of appeal in writ jurisdiction, we are unable to
evaluate the evidence by which the goods have been valued at ₹88 lakhs
at the time of seizure. No case is before us to show that there was grave
error or miscarriage of justice in making the valuation. The respondent
has agreed to accept ₹60 lakhs. We cannot interfere with those
established facts.
The learned single judge has allowed the writ petition by
directing payment of the said sum by the appellant to the respondent.
I find no infirmity in the said judgment and order. I affirm the
same. The appeal is, accordingly dismissed. I direct the appellant to
comply with the impugned judgment and order of the learned single
judge within four weeks of communication of this order.
(W. Diengdoh) (I.P. Mukerji)
Judge Chief Justice
Meghalaya
13.03.2025
"Sylvana PS"
Page 8 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by SYLVANA
LIZ KHARBHIH
Date: 2025.03.13 15:33:58
PDT
[ad_1]
Source link