2015 (3) TMI 777

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Customs Act, 1962. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that in the fourth auction, which was conducted in respect of the said goods, the petitioner's bid was the highest. Consequently, the petitioner should have been given the said goods at the price offered by the petitioner. Instead, the respondents have put the said goods to a fifth auction. The petitioner has placed reliance on Circular No. 50/2005-CUS dated 01.12.2005 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. The relevant portion of the said circular is as under:- "(i) The procedure shall be applicable only to unclaimed/ uncleared cargo landed at least one year prior to the date on which the list of goods for customs "no objection" is prepared. In other words, this l....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hould be conducted in time bound manner. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx"  (underlining added)  Relying on the above paragraph 3(vi), the petitioner states that the maximum number of auctions has been specified to be four and the highest bidder has to be sold the goods irrespective of the reserve price. According to the petitioner, it was the highest bidder in the fourth auction and therefore, the subject goods could not be subjected to a further auction, as has been done by the respondents. Consequently, it has been prayed that the fifth auction be cancelled and goods be sold to the petitioner at the price offered in the fourth auction. 3. Mr Nijhawan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the customs, submits that the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 3.12 All post-auction/tender offers, even if these are for amounts higher than the successful bid, shall be strictly disregarded and not taken congnizance of in any manner." 4. In terms of Clause 3.10 of the Circular No. 12/2006, it is evident that the goods have to be sold to the highest bidder obtained in the third auction. In the present case, the difficulty is that the petitioner did not participate in the third auction. Therefore, even if the Circular No. 12/2006 were to be strictly adhered to, the petitioner would have no case. Moreover, we are clear that it is Circular No. 12/2006 which would be applicable in the present case and not Circular No. 50/2005 because the latter circular pertains to auctions by the custodians and the f....