9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 777 - HC - CustomsValidity of auction sale - Petitioner s bid being highest in fourth auction was not considered and the goods were auctioned again in 5th auction - Held that - In terms of Clause 3.10 of the Circular No. 12/2006, it is evident that the goods have to be sold to the highest bidder obtained in the third auction. In the present case, the difficulty is that the petitioner did not participate in the third auction. Therefore, even if the Circular No. 12/2006 were to be strictly adhered to, the petitioner would have no case. Moreover, we are clear that it is Circular No. 12/2006 which would be applicable in the present case and not Circular No. 50/2005 because the latter circular pertains to auctions by the custodians and the former circular applies to auctions by the customs directly. The present case is one of an auction by the customs and not by any of the custodians. - The petitioner, having lost out in the fifth auction, cannot be permitted, after it has participated in the same, to challenge the said fifth auction. We are also informed that the highest bid obtained in the fifth auction is about ₹ 80 lacs more than what the petitioner had offered in the fourth auction - No merit in petition - Decided against Petitioner.
Issues:
Challenge to the holding of the fifth auction for time expired goods under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962. Interpretation of Circular No. 50/2005-CUS vs. Circular No. 12/2006-CUS for disposal of goods. Applicability of Circular No. 12/2006 for auctions by customs directly. Participation in auctions and locus standi of the petitioner. Analysis: 1. The petition challenges the fifth auction of time expired goods under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962, following a dispute where the petitioner's bid was the highest in the fourth auction. The petitioner relies on Circular No. 50/2005-CUS, emphasizing that the highest bidder should be sold the goods regardless of the reserve price, limiting auctions to four. The prayer is to cancel the fifth auction and sell the goods to the petitioner at the fourth auction price. 2. The respondent argues that Circular No. 50/2005 is for disposal by custodians, not customs directly, citing Circular No. 12/2006-CUS for customs auctions. The latter prescribes an E-auction without a reserve price, with a Joint Pricing Committee determining fair prices. Clause 3.10 specifies selling to the highest bidder in the third auction if goods remain unsold. 3. Considering Clause 3.10 of Circular No. 12/2006, it is clear that goods must be sold to the highest bidder in the third auction. As the petitioner did not participate in the third auction, the Circular's provisions do not favor the petitioner. The court determines that Circular No. 12/2006 applies to this case, not Circular No. 50/2005, as this auction is by customs directly, not custodians. 4. The court notes the petitioner's participation in the fifth auction, where their bid was not the highest. Having participated and lost in the fifth auction, the petitioner cannot challenge it afterward. The highest bid in the fifth auction significantly exceeds the petitioner's offer in the fourth auction. 5. Consequently, the court finds no merit in the writ petition and dismisses it, considering the petitioner's participation in the fifth auction and the significant difference in bids. The judgment upholds the applicability of Circular No. 12/2006 for auctions by customs directly and the necessity for active participation in auction processes.
|
