Goods Detention Overturned: Typographical Error Leads to Unjustified Penalty Under Section 129(3)

The HC found that detention of goods due to a typographical invoice error was unjustified. The respondent violated Section 129(3) by not passing orders within 7 days and improperly penalized the petitioner for a third-party mistake. The court modified the penalty, directing release of goods and instructing authorities to address the error with the original invoice issuer. The writ petition was allowed without imposing costs.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are typographical error in invoices leading to detention of goods, violation of provisions under Section 129(3) of the Act regarding passing of orders within a specified time frame, and the authority's penalization of the petitioner for a mistake committed by a third party.

Typographical error in invoices:
The petitioner, a manufacturer of TMT steel and iron bar, placed an order for the supply of goods with M/s. Rashmi Metaliks Limited. However, a typographical error was made by M/s. Rashmi in the invoices by mentioning "Tvl.T.M. Steel" instead of "Tvl.T. Balaji" in the "Shipped To" column. The respondent detained the consignment and penalized the petitioner for this error. The Court observed that the mistake was typographical as the correct address of Tvl.T. Balaji was mentioned, and the respondent failed to question M/s. Rashmi regarding the error. The detention of goods was deemed unjust as the petitioner was not at fault.

Violation of provisions under Section 129(3) of the Act:
The respondent intercepted the consignment and issued a detention order without passing any further order within the stipulated 7-day period from the date of service of notice. The Court noted the clear violation of Section 129(3) of the Act, which requires orders to be passed within the specified timeframe. As a result, the detention of goods was deemed to be against the provisions of the Act.

Penalization of petitioner for third-party mistake:
The Court directed the petitioner to pay a penalty of Rs. 5,000 to the respondent for the release of goods, modifying the impugned penalty order. The authorities were instructed to inform M/s. Rashmi Metaliks Limited of the mistake and take appropriate action against them. The petitioner was granted the liberty to challenge the modified penalty before the authorities. The Writ Petition was allowed with the mentioned directions, and no costs were imposed.

---