2022 (4) TMI 1168 - HC - Customs

Court orders release of auction goods, rejects objections, and sets deadline for petitioner to complete formalities.

Karan Kumar Arora Versus Union Of India And Ors.

Karan Kumar Arora Versus Union Of India And Ors. - TMI Issues:1. Whether the respondent authority can refuse to release goods to the successful bidder due to the requirement of a BIS certificate or the goods being liable for destruction.2. Whether the authorities can withhold the release of goods after an auction sale has been concluded.3. Whether the respondent authorities are obligated to release the goods in question to the petitioner.Analysis:Issue 1:The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus for the release of balance items from two lots of a delivery order. The petitioner participated in an e-tender cum e-auction, winning three lots, including lot no. 2 and lot no. 5. The authorities requested a security deposit, which the petitioner paid, and issued a delivery order. Subsequently, issues arose regarding the need for a BIS certificate for certain items and the potential destruction of cosmetic items. The petitioner argued that the goods were auctioned and could not be withheld based on BIS certificate requirements or destruction orders. The respondent cited a letter directing the disposal of uncleared cosmetics. The court analyzed the Customs Act, Circulars, and procedures for auctioned goods, concluding that objections for withholding goods were baseless.Issue 2:After the e-auction concluded, the petitioner fulfilled all formalities, and delivery orders were issued. The court held that once an auction sale is finalized, authorities cannot claim items require a BIS certificate or are subject to destruction. Referring to a previous judgment, the court emphasized that goods put up for auction cannot be withdrawn post-sale. As no other valid objections were raised, the respondent authorities were mandated to release the goods to the petitioner.Issue 3:The court set aside objections raised by the authorities and directed the release of the balance items from the delivery order to the petitioner within two weeks. The judgment emphasized the obligation of the respondent authorities to release the goods, highlighting the completion of formalities by the petitioner as grounds for release. The court allowed the writ petition, with no costs imposed.In a subsequent mention, a representative for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 appeared after previous non-appearances. A request for a stay of the court order was rejected, citing reasons provided in the judgment. The judgment, delivered by Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, concluded the matter by directing the release of goods and rejecting the stay request.