2010 (3) TMI 488

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rities is that the respondent No.3, Central Warehousing Corporation, who conducted the sale had no authority to do so.   3. The goods in question are certain fabrics. They were confiscated by the customs authorities on 19th December 2005. By such act, the property in them was properly vested in the Central Government.   4. There appears to be no dispute that this sale was under Section 48 of the Customs Act. The goods were stored in a warehouse owned by the respondent No.3. As a result of the confiscation order, they had to be sold. The total price with duty paid by the writ petitioner on these goods was Rs.48,10,000/-.   5. As the goods have not been delivered the writ petitioner filed this application for delivery ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....timated the petitioner accepting their offer and also stating therein "the bill of entry has been processed by Customs House Calcutta for payment of customs duty." In that letter the respondent No.3 called upon the petitioner to pay the balance value of the goods the break up of which is as follows:   1. Balance payment CWC Rs.18,78,067/-   2. Customs duty to be paid Rs.26,43,333/-   3. VAT Rs.1,92,400/-   According to the petitioner they paid about forty eight lacs in aggregate. Delivery of the goods could not be obtained. The customs held up the goods. They said that they were the owners and they ought to have sold them. The respondent No.3, warehouse had no authority to sell the goods. They did not deliver....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mage that the writ petitioner may have suffered due to disappearance of the goods should be recovered to a properly constituted suit. 12. Ordinarily, this writ application involving questions about alleged sale of goods by the government to a private party should not have been entertained in the writ jurisdiction. But, since the writ has been entertained and it is pending for a period of about three years, now the writ petitioner cannot be relegated to the remedy of a suit.   13. So in the circumstances, the respondents are under on obligation to deliver the goods to the writ petitioner upon his repayment of the price and duties originally paid. If the respondents are unable to deliver the goods to the writ petitioner, in my opin....