2021 (2) TMI 906 - HC - Customs

Auction - inaction on the part of the original consignees, who had not come forward firstly to submit bills of entry followed by the non-clearance of the goods for home consumption or warehousing or transhipping within 30 days from the date of unloading the containers at the custom station, as required under Section 48 of the said Act - CBIC Circular No.49/2018-Customs, dated 03.02.2018 - HELD THAT - The admitted position is that the goods in 113 containers reached at ICD, Sonepat, in the months of May and June, 2020. After the nationwide lockdown because of COVID-19 pandemic, the unlocking of the said lockdown started w.e.f. 08.06.2020. Thereafter, there was ample time for the importers to respond and get cleared the goods. Despite three notices having been sent to each of the importers over a period of time, none of them turned up to clear the goods. Thereafter, the Custodian of the goods proceeded to comply with the requirement of statute and got the proper no objection certificate and clearances with regard to opening of the seal, inspection of the goods, valuation thereof and ultimately no objection for auctioning of the imported goods i.e. waste paper contained in 113 containers. The process of online auctioning through MSTC was conducted on 05.11.2020 by the Custodian. It is, thereafter, the petitioner who is the consignor, for the first time, wrote a letter dated 06.11.2020, which was received in the office of respondent No.3 on 10.11.2020 requesting him for cancellation of the auction process. This clearly shows that the petitioner had been sitting over the matter. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was required to be informed or intimation was required to be sent prior to proceeding with auction of the goods contained in 113 containers is not based upon any statutory right conferred upon the petitioner, who admittedly is a consignor. Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962, makes it amply clear that notice for selling the goods has to be sent to the importer prior to the auction of the goods - it cannot be said that the auction of the goods, as carried out by the respondents, is not in accordance with law especially when the same has been so carried out as per the directions given in the Disposal Manual-2019 and the norms laid down under CBIC Circular No.49/2018-Customs, dated 03.12.2018, which relates to the disposal of the imported goods. This Court is of the firm view that the action, which has been taken by the respondents, is in accordance with the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and therefore, no interference in exercising extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court is called for. Rather the petitioner has approached this Court with an intention to further delay the process of disposal of the goods and to impede the process of collection of revenue which is to be received after the disposal of the imported goods contained in 113 containers which have been auctioned - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Abandonment of goods by consignees.
2. Auctioning of goods by customs authorities.
3. Petitioner's request for extension to complete formalities.
4. Compliance with Sections 46, 47, and 48 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Abandonment of Goods by Consignees:
The petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and exporting paper products, shipped goods to various companies in India. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the resultant lockdown, the consignees did not complete the legal formalities to take delivery of the consignments. Consequently, the goods remained at the Inland Container Depot (ICD), Sonepat, leading to abandonment by the consignees and financial losses for the petitioner.

2. Auctioning of Goods by Customs Authorities:
The customs authorities, after issuing notices to the importers and receiving no response, proceeded with the auction of the goods under Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962. The custodian informed the authorities about the non-clearance of goods, leading to the opening, inspection, and valuation of the containers. The auction was conducted online on 05.11.2020 by the custodian, and the goods were sold to the highest bidders.

3. Petitioner's Request for Extension to Complete Formalities:
The petitioner sought to mitigate losses by finding a new buyer, Kailashi Devi Pulps & Paper Products, who agreed to take delivery and pay all customs duties. The petitioner requested time extensions to complete the necessary formalities for amending the Import General Manifest (IGM). Despite several extensions and opportunities provided by the customs authorities, the petitioner failed to submit the required documents within the stipulated time.

4. Compliance with Sections 46, 47, and 48 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The customs authorities complied with the statutory requirements under Sections 46, 47, and 48 of the Customs Act. The importers did not file bills of entry or clear the goods within 30 days, leading to the auction process. Section 48 mandates notice to the importer before auctioning the goods, which was duly followed. The petitioner, being the consignor, was not entitled to such notice. The court found that the auction was conducted in accordance with the law, including the Disposal Manual-2019 and CBIC Circular No.49/2018-Customs.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, concluding that the customs authorities acted in accordance with the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner's request for further extension was seen as an attempt to delay the auction process and impede revenue collection. The court upheld the actions of the customs authorities and found no merit in the petitioner's claims.