SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- A.S. Anand, C.J. M. Jagannadha Rao and N. Santosh Hedge, JJ.

SLP(C) 1980-81/1999. D/d. 12.4.1999.

Commissioner Of Customs, Air Cargo, N.D. And Ors. - Petitioner

Versus

Bin Sabt Jewellery, Dubai (U.A.E.) - Respondent

Constitution of India, 1950, Article 136 - Customs Act, 1962, Sections 110 and 111 - Seizure of goods - SLP against - Whether rendered infructuous - During pendency of SLP against seizure of goods, the seized goods were confiscated - Hence SLP rendered infructuous and thereby dismissed.

[Paras 1 and 3]

ORDER

A.S. Anand, J. - Learned Additional Solicitor General submits, on the basis of written instructions received from the Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo that should the respondent succeed in claiming the gold bars, the subject matter of these petitions, the Department will issue a detention certificate to the Airport Authority of India and waive of the demurrage charges for the period commencing from the date of seizure till the date when the matter is decided in favour of the respondent. Learned Additional Solicitor General further submits that the proceedings for confiscation of gold had been initiated by the authorities and an order has already been made confiscating the said bars. It is submitted that in view of the order of confiscation of gold bars, these petitions have now been rendered infructuous.

2. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the order of confiscation was made behind the back of the respondent and that the respondent would take appropriate proceedings in the proper forum against the order of confiscation. We record his statement. The respondent is at liberty to take re course to such proceedings as are available to it.

3. Special Leave Petitions are dismissed as infructuous. No costs.

4. The bank guarantee, on account of the subsequent orders made by the departmental authorities regarding confiscation should not be returned to the respondent because the petitioners have the custody of the confiscated gold.

Alps Dismissed.