2018 (10) TMI 771 - HC - Customs

Leave of an order passed by this Court on 26th September, 2018 - holding of public auction within a week from the date of the order upon notice to all concerned parties - it is pleaded that plaint to be restricted to 256 containers - Held that - The public auction should also have been restricted to that number. This has admittedly not been done, whatever the claims of the Customs against the defendant no. 1 may be. Counsel for the parties are in agreement that the notice of the auction will be served on the defendant no. 1 and the other concerned defendants by e-mail, particulars of which shall be provided to the Customs Authorities here and now. This matter be treated as day s list.

Summary

Issues:
- Proper notice of auction not given to defendant no. 1
- Discrepancy in the number of containers for auction
- Suit filed for remaining containers not pursued

Issue 1: Proper notice of auction not given to defendant no. 1
The defendant no. 1 moved an application stating that they were not properly notified about the auction of containers by the Customs Authorities. The defendant no. 1 claimed that they only learned about the auction the evening before it was scheduled to take place. The counsel for defendant no. 1 argued that as per the court's order, proper notice should have been given to all parties involved, which did not happen in this case. On the other hand, the counsel for Customs/defendant no. 2 stated that a notice was sent to defendant no. 1 on 9th October, 2018, but could not provide evidence of its receipt by defendant no. 1.

Issue 2: Discrepancy in the number of containers for auction
The defendant no. 1 raised concerns about the discrepancy in the number of containers intended for auction. The order from a previous appeal limited the scope of the suit to 256 containers, but the auction included all 905 containers. The counsel for both parties agreed that the auction should have been restricted to the 256 containers as per the court's previous order. The court directed that proper notice of the auction be served to defendant no. 1 and other concerned parties via email before any further steps were taken regarding the auction.

Issue 3: Suit filed for remaining containers not pursued
The counsel for defendant no. 1 mentioned that a suit had been filed for the remaining 649 containers in 2012, but no steps had been taken to pursue the matter or have the goods in those containers sold for relief. The court listed the matter for the defendant no. 1 to inform the court about their plans regarding the remaining 649 containers and the steps taken in the said suit on 27th November, 2018.

In conclusion, the court addressed the issues raised by the defendant no. 1 regarding the lack of proper notice for the auction, the discrepancy in the number of containers included in the auction, and the lack of action taken on the suit filed for the remaining containers. The court directed that the auction should be limited to the 256 containers as per the previous order and required proper notice to be served before proceeding. The defendant no. 1 was instructed to provide information on their plans for the remaining containers and the progress of the suit filed for them.