2010 (11) TMI 343 - HC - Customs

Auction of the goods - Though lengthy arguments have been raised from both the sides that touch the merit of the appeal but we are of the view that in view of the observations made by the Tribunal that it did not find even, prima facie, case in favour of the petitioners and good chance of success in appeal nor the balance of convenience lies in favour of the petitioner and that it was not inclines to interfere with the adjudication order at the interim stage, while rejecting the application, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order so passed - if the Appellate Tribunal has considered all the aspects of the matter, while considering the stay application and exercised its discretion in not awarding the stay order, the High Court will not interfere under Article 226, unless it is established that such an exercise has not been made on sound judicial principles and is against the facts or in violation of law - Petition is dismissed

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to rejection of stay application by Appellate Tribunal and prayer to stop auction of goods.

Analysis:
The petitioners challenged the rejection of their stay application by the Appellate Tribunal and sought to halt the auction of goods pending the appeal's disposal. The respondent's counsel contended that the writ petition against the stay rejection order was not maintainable. The Tribunal had provided valid reasons for the rejection, which, according to the respondent, did not warrant interference by the Court.

The High Court noted that although extensive arguments were presented by both parties touching the appeal's merits, the Tribunal had found no prima facie case in favor of the petitioners. The Tribunal also did not see a good chance of success in the appeal or a balance of convenience in the petitioner's favor. Consequently, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the adjudication order at the interim stage, leading the High Court to uphold the rejection of the stay application.

The Court emphasized that it would not intervene under Article 226 if the Appellate Tribunal had considered all aspects of the matter and exercised its discretion in denying the stay order based on sound judicial principles. The order rejecting the stay application had duly considered all relevant facts before making the decision.

Regarding the consequences of the goods' auction, the Court noted that the Act itself provided protections to prevent any loss or injury to the petitioners. With these considerations in mind, the High Court ultimately dismissed the petition, affirming the Tribunal's decision to reject the stay application.