IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.913 of 2003 1. Union of India through Commissioner Customs, Patna. 2. Commissioner, Customs, Central Revenue Building Birchand Patel Path, Patna. 3. Assistant Commissioner (Adj) Customs, Head Quarters, Patna. 4. Assistant Commissioner, Customs Division, Motihari. 5. Inspector Customs, Gopalganj, Customs Circle, Gopalganj. ---- Respondents---Appellants. Versus Mahabir Prasad Sarawgi, son of Sri Basudeo Sarawgi, resident of Mother India Bisi Building, A.T. Road, Guwahati, Assam ---- Petitioner---Respondent. ------------ 10. 25.10.2010 Heard Mr. Sarvadeo Singh for the appellants, and Mr. Birju Prasad for the respondent. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of High Court of Judicature at Patna raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 22.8.2003, passed in C.W.J.C. no. 7086 of 2002 (Mahabir Prasad Sarawgi Vs. Union of India & Ors.), whereby the appellants herein have been directed to refund the balance of the amount due to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 12 percent. We shall go by the description of the parties occurring in the present appeal. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this appeal may be indicated. On 7.10.1998, 13,300/- Kg. of betel nuts of the petitioner were seized by the Inspector of Customs, Gopalganj, on suspicion that it was of foreign 2 origin. The authorities had assessed the price of goods at Rs.13,30,000/-, as stated in the seizure memo. The goods were ultimately confiscated by the authorities under the provisions of Customs Act, 1962(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The respondents challenged the same by preferring appeal which was allowed, and the goods in question were directed to be released. In the meantime, the confiscated goods were auction sold for Rs.4,77,603/-. After the order of Tribunal, this amount was refunded to the petitioner leading to the present writ petition. It was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by the order in question, whereby the appellants have been directed to pay the balance of the price of the goods assessed by the learned authorities under the Act at the time of the seizure of the goods, along with interest at the rate of interest of 12 percent. 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears to us that the learned Single Judge has proceeded on a sound basis in so far as the quantified amount is concerned. It is obviously the amount assessed by the authorities at the time of the seizure, and noted in the 3 seizure memo. We do not find any ground on the part of the appellants to challenge the same. No material has been brought to our notice to take a different view in so far as quantification of the amount is concerned. We are equally of the view that the learned Single Judge rightly granted interest at the rate of 12 percent on the balance amount. 4. One more aspect must be noticed. Section 150 of the Act provides that there shall be a notice to the alleged owner of the goods before it is auction sold. No such notice was served on the respondent as a result of which he was, inter alia, deprived of participating in the auction sale. The learned Single Judge was, therefore, right in granting interest at the rate of 12 percent. The appellants have burdened this Court by generating most needless litigations. 5. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. The respondent shall be entitled to interest on the unpaid amount from the date of seizure of goods till the date of payment. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar,J. ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)