9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 1621 - HC - CustomsAuction of goods - violation of the provisions of Section 45 read with Section 150 of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - The petitioner has faced multiple round of litigation including upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and inspite of dropping of proceedings and payment of the due customs duty, has been deprived of its goods by the action of the respondents, which virtually amounts to misleading this Court, inviting severe exemplary action. The goods were seized by the Customs Department and the Warehouse Keeper (respondent No. 3) is their licencee, who refused to accept the Detention Certificate issued by the Customs and proceeded to auction the goods in violation of the statutory procedure, moreso, when this Court was seized of the matter. The Auction Notice was issued on 02.05.2018, whereas neither in the letter dated 22.05.2018 (Noticed in P-18) nor in the reply to the present writ petition by both the respondents, the said fact was disclosed. Both, the Department of Customs and the Warehouse Keeper (respondent No. 3) have deliberately misleaded this Court, amounting to interference in administration of justice. Notice of the application bearing CM No. 16007-CWP of 2018 is issued to the respondents for the next date of hearing - Adjourned to 21.11.2019.
Issues:
1. Additional affidavit and letter placed on record. 2. Contempt proceedings against respondents. 3. Dispute over imported goods and detention by Customs. 4. Auction of goods by Warehouse Keeper without permission. 5. Demand for storage charges and violation of statutory procedures. 6. Misleading the Court and interference in administration of justice. 7. Initiation of contempt proceedings against Commissioner of Customs and Warehouse Keeper. Additional Affidavit and Letter Placed on Record: The petitioner filed an application to place an additional affidavit and letter on record, which was allowed by the Court. The documents dated 31.10.2018 and 24.10.2018 were taken on record as P-18 collectively, and the respondents were directed to file a reply by the adjourned date. Contempt Proceedings Against Respondents: The petitioner initiated contempt proceedings against the respondents based on the contents of an additional affidavit. The petitioner sought to prevent further sale of goods by an Auction Purchaser and requested the Court to ensure compliance. The Court issued a notice to the respondents for the next hearing to show cause as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them. Dispute Over Imported Goods and Detention by Customs: The petitioner imported goods described as Pressed Distillate Oil, which were detained and seized by the Commissioner of Customs due to doubts regarding the description and value. After five years of litigation, the Tribunal settled all issues in favor of the petitioner, directing the immediate release of the goods with an option for redemption. Auction of Goods by Warehouse Keeper Without Permission: During the proceedings, it was revealed that the Warehouse Keeper had auctioned the goods in question without prior permission from the Commissioner of Customs or offering the goods to the owner. The petitioner alleged that the auction was conducted illegally, leading to a violation of statutory procedures. Demand for Storage Charges and Violation of Statutory Procedures: The Warehouse Keeper demanded storage charges amounting to ?4.45 crores despite the goods being sold for a significantly lower amount. The petitioner argued that this demand was in violation of the Detention Certificate issued by the Customs Authority and the provisions of the Handling Cargo in Custom Area Regulation, 2009. Misleading the Court and Interference in Administration of Justice: The Customs Department and the Warehouse Keeper were accused of misleading the Court by not disclosing the auction of goods in May 2018. The petitioner cited case law to support the contention that no storage charges should be levied after the issuance of a Detention Memo by the Customs Department. Initiation of Contempt Proceedings Against Commissioner of Customs and Warehouse Keeper: The Court directed the Commissioner of Customs and the Managing Director of the Warehouse Keeper to show cause as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them. The Court granted an opportunity for an amicable settlement between the parties before the next hearing date, keeping the proposed contempt proceedings in abeyance.
|
