Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2015 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 689 - HC - CustomsAttachment of property - Garnishee order - Freezing of bank account - Auction of goods without prior permission - Held that:- cargo containing sheets cutting belonging to the second respondent was lying with the petitioner's CFS and thereupon, by conducting E-auction, the petitioner's Company sold the goods in question for a sum of ₹ 40,77,000/-. As per Section 150 of the Customs Act, the petitioner Company has to pay necessary fees to the customs department. - in the event of a public auction under the Act, the proceeds of the sale shall be applied in the above said order. Accordingly, in the present case, the petitioner Company had incurred ₹ 1,50,000/- towards E-auction, ₹ 9,27,303/- towards the customs duty and ₹ 2,03,850/- towards VAT arising from sale and ₹ 30,20,940/- towards storage, handling and overdue charges. These expenses have been supported by the various documents. Therefore, when the petitioner Company has sold away the goods belonging to the second respondent legally in E-auction only after issuing notices to both the respondents and thereby they have also realised a sum of ₹ 42,80,850/-, after adjusting all these amount as per Section 150 of the Customs Act, yet they have incurred additional expenses of ₹ 21,243/- and thus, they were ultimately left with no money from the sale proceeds of E-auction. Hence, since nothing has been left with the petitioner Company as balance money from the proceeds of the auction sale, the respondent is not legally entitled to attach the amount deposited in the third respondent Bank. Even before bringing the goods belonging to the second respondent to sell in E-auction, the petitioner Company had issued notice dated 22.07.2013 under Section 48 of the Customs Act requesting the second respondent to clear the said cargo, otherwise, necessary steps would be taken to dispose of the said goods. Again, finding no reply, the petitioner issued another notice dated 08.08.2013 under Section 48 of the Customs Act for disposal of the said goods and finally, since there was no response from the second respondent, the petitioner Company, with due intimation to the first respondent, sold the goods belonging to the second respondent for a sum of ₹ 40,77,000/- vide E-auction dated 28.11.2014, therefore, I do not find any irregularity in selling the goods as they admittedly issued notices to both the respondents before selling the goods. - Decided in favour of appellant.
|