Uncleared cargo disposal by tender sale upheld where repeated notice was given and writ challenges to valuation failed.

Uncleared imported cargo may be disposed of by tender sale under the governing port statute where the importer has been repeatedly notified and given adequate opportunity to clear the goods. Payment of port charges does not confer a right to keep cargo indefinitely in port premises, and compliance with the statutory scheme was accepted on the facts. A writ court will not ordinarily upset such a sale on disputed allegations of undervaluation or mala fides, and alleged absence of customs permission was rejected where the applicable circular-based procedure was followed. The writ petition was dismissed and the auction purchaser's title was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Port Trust's disposal of uncleared cargo by tender sale under Section 62 of the Major Ports Trust Act, 1963 was unlawful for want of notice or non-compliance with the statutory scheme; (ii) Whether the sale could be invalidated in writ jurisdiction on the grounds of alleged undervaluation, mala fides, or absence of customs permission.

Issue (i): Whether the Port Trust's disposal of uncleared cargo by tender sale under Section 62 of the Major Ports Trust Act, 1963 was unlawful for want of notice or non-compliance with the statutory scheme.

Analysis: The cargo had remained uncleared for a substantial period, and the importers were repeatedly called upon to clear it by notices issued in July and August 1995. The Court held that payment of port charges did not confer a right to retain the goods in the Port Trust premises indefinitely. Section 62 was treated as the governing provision on the facts, and the Court accepted that the importers were given adequate opportunity to clear the goods, including an agreed extended time through their clearing agent. In those circumstances, the disposal of the goods was not contrary to the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The challenge to the sale on the ground of breach of Section 62 failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the sale could be invalidated in writ jurisdiction on the grounds of alleged undervaluation, mala fides, or absence of customs permission.

Analysis: The Court found no material to attribute mala fides to the Port Trust. It accepted that the sale price exceeded the reserved price and that the procedure adopted had been followed. The allegation of undervaluation raised disputed facts which were not fit for examination in writ jurisdiction. The Court also held that there was compliance with the customs-related permission requirement on the basis of the general circular relied upon by the Port Trust.

Conclusion: The sale could not be set aside on grounds of undervaluation, mala fides, or alleged want of customs permission.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was rejected, and the auction purchaser's title under the tender sale was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where imported cargo remains uncleared despite repeated notice and opportunity, the port authority may lawfully dispose of it under the governing statutory provision, and a writ court will not ordinarily interfere on disputed allegations of undervaluation or mala fides.

---