9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 77X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of the learned single Judge preferred W.A.No.195 of 2005 and the respondents 2 to 4/Customs Department in the writ petitions preferred W.A.No.402 of 2005. 2. For convenience, the parties in this Judgment will be referred to according to their ranks in the writ petition. 3. The case of the writ petitioner is that it imported 20,000 pieces of Glass Shell with fluorescent powder welding and 20,000 pieces of PCB plus cap plus base with wires from China after obtaining permission from the Customs Department and the same were warehoused in the Warehousing Corporation at Chennai, on 19.2.2002 and 21.2.2002. The writ petitioner also filed bill of entry on 6.3.2002 bearing No.382146 to clear 20,000 pieces of Glass Shell and declared the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st respondent informed that the goods were sold in auction. On 25.6.2003 legal notice was sent to the Warehousing Corporation as well as Customs Department Officers stating that the sale is illegal as no notice was issued to the writ petitioner before the materials were sold in auction pending investigation. 4. The writ petitioner having not received any reply, filed W.P.No.20799 of 2003 and prayed for direction to the respondents to pay compensation at the rate of 20% of the value of the goods and interest at the rate of 24% from the date of warehousing the goods on 19.2.2002 on the ground that section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962, has not been complied with before conducting the sale and no permission was given to the first respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arges of Rs.31,320/- were adjusted and balance of Rs.1,67,632/- alone is payable to the writ petitioner by handing over the stamped receipt for the said amount. (b) Insofar as 20,000 pieces of Glass Shell with Fluorescent Powder Welding only, the writ petitioner filed the bill of entry and for other consignment viz., 20,000 pieces of PCB plus cap plus Base, the writ petitioner has not produced the bill of entry and therefore the writ petitioner was not interested in taking release of the same and abandoned the said goods. The notice having been despatched on 25.1.1993 under Sl.No.3107 and 3108 and since there was no response from the writ petitioner, the Cargos were put up for auction in Lot No.44/2003 and goods were sold for Rs.3,01,00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeals by the respondents. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants/respondents in the writ petition submitted that Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962, has been complied with and the writ petitioner has not given change of address and notice was given in the address given in the cargo and that the address given in the writ petition varies and therefore the non-receipt of the notice by the writ petitioner cannot be put against the respondents as no communication for address change was ever intimated. 10. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner contended that no notice having been served, there is violation of principles of natural justice and Section 48 of the Customs Act and the learned Judge is right in allowing the writ peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959)." From the perusal of the said section it is clear that if the imported goods are not cleared within 30 days or within such further time as the proper officer may allow or if the title to any imported goods is relinquished, such goods may be sold after giving notice to the importer with the permission of the proper officer. The permission granted by the Proper Officer on 22.1.2003 to the Warehousing Corporation is filed in the typed set of papers filed by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-1. The notice issued by the Warehousing Corporation to the writ petitioner, which was returned un-served is proved through the letter of the postal department dated 21.1.2004. The learned counsels for the appellants submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce was sent only to the address furnished by the writ petitioner. In the above circumstances, if at all the notice is not served, the writ petitioner alone should be blamed for non-communication of the change of address. Hence we are of the view that the respondents satisfied the procedures contemplated under section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962. 15. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents/appellants herein that the claim in the writ petition is for repayment of money and the same is not maintainable and the sale effected having not been questioned, the prayer made in the writ petition should not have been granted are well founded. It is well settled in law that if the quantum is in dispute, the remedy open to the pers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
