9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 488X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ia through the Commissioner of Customs Calcutta is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 7,20,000/- to the writ petitioner within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order, in the event they are unable to deliver the goods to him. The writ is allowed to that extent. - 421 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 3-3-2010 - I.P. Mukerji, J. REPRESENTED BY: Shri R.K. Chowdhury, Advocate, for the Petitioner. S/Shri Tilak Bose, Aryak Dutta, Soumya Majumdar and Debyundu Chatterjee, Advocates, for the Respondent. [Judgment] - This writ application challenges the action of the customs authorities in cancelling the sale of goods in lot No. 28/06, sold to the writ petitioner in an auction. The delivery order was issued on 23rd Marc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the Central Government. The warehouse called the custodian, that is, the respondent No.3 wrote a letter dated 20th November, 2006 to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs Dock Intelligence Unit (A/SIB) Customs House Calcutta mentioning the above goods and asking for their no objection to their sale. The customs by their letter dated 7th December 2006 wanted a more detailed description of the goods, in terms of bill of entry number, bill of lading number, importer's name, IEC and CHNA. I do not find from the records that such list was furnished by the respondent No. 3 but I do find that three failed auctions were held and this was the fourth auction. Therefore, it is difficult to believe that the customs had no knowledge about the sale of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the customs. This duty was paid by the writ petitioner and accepted by the customs. Therefore, having permitted the respondent No.3 to represent that they were authorised to carry out the sale or in any event having acquiescenced in the actions of the respondent No.3, the customs authority will not be permitted today to deny their authority. Furthermore, such internecine dispute between the customs and the warehouse should not affect the right of the writ petitioner/buyer who is an innocent party. 11. At the hearing of this application the respondent No.3 could not confirm that the goods were available. Therefore, it is very doubtful if those can be delivered to the writ petitioner. An extreme argument was made on behalf of the cust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it petitioner participated in the auction sale for the purpose of reselling the goods in the market and would reasonably have made a profit of about 15% on the cost price, which is 15% of Rs.48 lakhs, that is, Rs.7,20,000/-. In my opinion, that is the loss to be suffered by the writ petitioner which is to be compensated by the government of India, if the respondents are unable to deliver the goods. Therefore, the Government of India through the Commissioner of Customs Calcutta is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 7,20,000/- to the writ petitioner within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order, in the event they are unable to deliver the goods to him. The writ is allowed to that extent. Urgent certified photo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
