1968 (2) TMI 129 - SC - Customs

Supreme Court affirms judgment for delivery of goods; emphasizes 'prime quality goods.'

The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's judgment, directing the Port Trust to deliver the remaining goods to the petitioner, excluding specific items. ... - Issues Involved:1. Authority and scope of the Customs Authorities' sanction for the sale of goods.2. Legality of the seizure of goods by the Customs Authorities.3. Validity of the auction sale and the nature of the goods sold.4. Maintainability of the writ petition and the High Court's jurisdiction.5. Specific performance of the contract and the nature of relief sought.Detailed Analysis of the Judgment:1. Authority and Scope of the Customs Authorities' Sanction for the Sale of Goods:The Customs Authorities sanctioned the sale of goods described in Lots Nos. 156 and 157 as 'scrap unserviceable' and 'scrap re-rollable.' The Assistant Collector of Customs imposed a fine on these goods and sanctioned their sale. The court found no evidence indicating an intention to exclude 'prime quality goods' from this sanction. The auctioneer's list did not exclude any 'prime quality goods,' and no written intimation was given by the Customs Authorities to exclude such goods from the sale. The court concluded that the Customs Authorities had not excluded 'prime quality goods' from the sanction.2. Legality of the Seizure of Goods by the Customs Authorities:The Customs Authorities seized the goods on the grounds that they were liable to confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the court held that the seizure was unauthorized as the goods had already been sanctioned for sale and delivered to the petitioner. The Customs Officers present during the delivery did not raise any objections, and the court found no grounds for the seizure under Section 110 of the Customs Act.3. Validity of the Auction Sale and the Nature of the Goods Sold:The court examined whether the auction sale was intended to include only 'scrap' or also 'prime quality goods.' The auction conditions excluded certain items, but there was no exclusion of 'prime quality goods.' The auctioneer announced that the goods included rails, wires, sheets, and plates, which were available for delivery. The court held that the goods described in Lots Nos. 156 and 157, excluding the items specified in the Special Conditions, were sold to the petitioner. The court rejected the contention that only 'scrap' was intended to be sold.4. Maintainability of the Writ Petition and the High Court's Jurisdiction:The court held that a writ petition was maintainable for challenging the unauthorized order of the Customs Authorities. The existence of an alternative remedy does not bar the jurisdiction of the High Court. The High Court has the discretion to entertain a writ petition even if disputed questions of fact arise. The court noted that no request was made to cross-examine the deponents of affidavits, and the parties were willing to have the matter tried on affidavits. The court found no reason to criticize the High Court's discretion to try the matter on affidavits.5. Specific Performance of the Contract and the Nature of Relief Sought:The petitioner was not seeking to enforce a contractual obligation but was enforcing his right to the goods on payment of the price. The court held that the petitioner became the owner of the goods once his bid was accepted. The Port Trust was obligated to deliver the goods, and the refusal to do so was arbitrary. The court directed the Port Trust to deliver the remaining goods, excluding the items specified in the Special Conditions and those claimed by others.Conclusion:The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's judgment with clarifications. The Port Trust was directed to deliver the remaining 632 tons of goods to the petitioner, excluding specific items. The appeals were dismissed, and the parties were ordered to bear their own costs. The court emphasized that the Customs Authorities had not excluded 'prime quality goods' from the sale, and the seizure of goods was unauthorized. The writ petition was maintainable, and the High Court's discretion to try the matter on affidavits was upheld.