Court upholds customs auction under Customs Act, 1962, denying extension request. Petition dismissed for delay tactic.

The court dismissed the petition, upholding the customs authorities' actions in auctioning the goods in accordance with the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner's request for extension was denied as it was viewed as an attempt to delay the process. The court found no merit in the petitioner's claims and concluded that the auction was conducted lawfully, following statutory requirements and procedures outlined in the Customs Act and related guidelines.

---

---

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.

---