Date of order: 31 October 2022

Facts:

• The appellants, Satish Mehta and M/s Dhanistha Gold were intercepted by officers of DRI and impounded the Skoda Rapid car owned by Shri Nitin Jain, proprietor of M/s. Dhanistha Gold Based on the intelligence information of the contaminated gold, there is an allegation of smuggling gold bars in that vehicle, after an investigation of such vehicle the DRI seized the gold. 
• After the investigation a show cause notice was issued for the Appellant and Co-appellants under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act.
• The Appellant requested for release of confiscated gold and return the amount deposited at the time of preferring the appeal before the Tribunal. The department provided the cheques to the Appellants.
• The Appellants requested the department to refund the differential value of gold that was calculated by comparing the value of the gold melted on 01.08.2018 and the date on which cheque was given to the Appellants but the department rejected the request for refund.

Issue: 

• Whether the appellants are entitled to receive the differential value of the seized gold between the value prevailing on the date of melting i.e. 01.08.2018 and value as on the date of which the cheque was given to the Appellant.

Order: 

• The authorities observed that during of the pendency of the appeal, it appears that the department took steps to dispose of the said disputed Gold, through the SBI Bullion Branch.
• Therefore, the authorities also observed that during the pendency of the appeal before the CESTAT, it would not be appropriate for the Department to dispose of the disputed seized goods, especially when the Appellants had filed appeals challenging the impugned order before the Tribunal and department also aware about the filing of Appeals by the Appellant.
• The authorities said that in the disputed matter appeals were filed by the Appellant after compliance of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, therefore Appellant were not required to file any stay application for recovery of government dues during the pendency of Appeals. 
• The Authorities observed that the action of the department is clearly in gross violation of principles of natural justice, hence the same cannot be allowed to sustain.
• It was observed that the appellants are entitled for the refund of differential value of the gold as claimed by them along with interest.
• The appeals are allowed with consequential relief.