2007 (8) TMI 236 - HC - Customs

Appellant, bidder in auction Solatium & interest claimed, is not entitled as he could took back his money because sale was not confirmed by dept - Importer can make his goods released if he pays duty within 30 days otherwise sale in auction will be confirmed in favor of appellant

Summary

Issues:
1. Confirmation of sale of imported goods.
2. Application for release of goods.
3. Assessment of duty payable.
4. Claim for solatium and interest.
5. Dammarage charges and ground rent entitlement.
6. Directions for the resolution of the issues.

Analysis:
1. The petitioners were the successful bidders in an auction for the disposal of imported goods by Respondent No.5. The sale was subject to confirmation by Respondent No.3 within 20 days, which did not happen. Respondent No.5 later applied for the release of the goods, citing reasons for the delay. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, in response to this application, prevented the petitioners from removing the goods, leading to the petitioners approaching the court on this matter.

2. The court considered the actions of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in light of the unconfirmed sale and the subsequent application for release of goods by Respondent No.5. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs confirmed the duty payable on the goods. The petitioners relied on a Supreme Court judgment to support their claim for solatium at a specific rate or interest due to the money being held by Respondent No.3.

3. Respondent No.3 argued for dammarage charges and ground rent entitlement, which the court noted as a separate issue between Respondent No.3 and Respondent No.5, not directly relevant to the current petition. The court disposed of the petition by issuing specific directions to resolve the matter, including deadlines for payment of assessed duty, release of goods, and the handling of the deposited amount based on different scenarios.

4. The court clarified that the petitioners were not entitled to solatium or interest in this case due to the specific circumstances and the absence of confirmed sale, as highlighted in the referenced Supreme Court case. The judgment emphasized the importance of timely payment of duty by Respondent No.5 and outlined the corresponding actions to be taken by the involved parties based on the fulfillment or non-fulfillment of this condition. The ruling concluded by making the rule absolute without any cost orders.