9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Liability for payment of imported goods sold in auction by International Airport Authority of India. Analysis: The judgment in this case revolves around the question of liability for the payment of imported goods sold in auction by the International Airport Authority of India. The petitioner had imported GS software, which was assessed at Rs. 67 lakhs, and paid Customs duty of Rs. 7,11,388. A dispute arose regarding the classification of the goods, leading to a demand for additional duty. The petitioner appealed to the CEGAT and later to the Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of the petitioner. However, during this time, the goods were handed over to the Airport Authority and subsequently sold in an auction. The petitioner contended that the Customs authorities were primarily responsible for the return of the seized goods. The issue of assessing the value of the goods in July 1995 at Rs. 65 lakhs was raised. The Addl. Solicitor General argued that the petitioner could have cleared the goods by paying the differential duty, while the second respondent's counsel claimed that they were not a necessary party and that the Customs authorities were liable for the payment of the goods' value. The court applied the doctrine of restitution and examined the relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. It highlighted the obligations of the custodian of imported goods in a Customs area and the procedures for disposal of unclaimed goods. The court emphasized that the primary liability for the situation lay with the first respondent, who failed to inform the petitioner about the auction of the goods and neglected to handle the matter fairly. The judgment concluded that the first respondent was primarily liable to pay the value of the goods to the petitioner, with interest. It directed the first respondent to pay Rs. 65 lakhs to the petitioner with 12% interest from August 1995. The first respondent could recover the amount from the second respondent as per the applicable laws. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to costs as well. The judgment clarified that the resolution of any conflicting interests between the respondents was not the court's concern, and the first respondent could not evade its liability by blaming the second respondent, who was merely a custodian.
|
