Cus - Transaction between petitioner, Customs Department and Professional Auctioneers is a private contract and not amenable to jurisdiction of High Court under Art. 226 of Constitution: HC
By TIOL News Service
CHENNAI, SEPT 28, 2017: THE petitioner seeks issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the Joint Commissioner of Customs (Warehouse & Disposal) to return the Earnest Money Deposit of Rs. 1,62,000/-.
The facts are that the petitioner participated in the public auction conducted by Professional Auctioneers, on behalf of the Customs Department, in respect of Lot No. 315 consisting of decorative wares, gift articles and other miscellaneous items. In the auction conducted on 31.10.2003, the petitioner offered the highest bid of Rs.16,20,000/-, which was accepted by the 1st respondent (Commissioner of Customs) on 10.11.2003 and conveyed to the auctioneers on the same day. The petitioner paid the mandatory Earnest Money Deposit of Rs.1,62,000/- on the date on which the auction was conducted.
The lot for which the petitioner had submitted their bid consisted of one 40 feet container with approximately 858 carton boxes containing hundreds of small gift articles of varied description. Since it was not practically possible to give description of each and every article contained therein, the Department has given a general description to the articles as decorative wares, gift articles and miscellaneous goods.
The petitioner, with their eyes wide open (in the words of the High Court), participated in the auction and offered their bid and was declared as the highest bidder. After such declaration was made, the petitioner promptly remitted the Earnest Money Deposit as well and, therefore, the petitioner was required to pay the balance amount for which the petitioner sought extension of time.
The request of the petitioner was obliged and time was extended upto 08.12.2003. The petitioner was also informed that if they do not pay the balance sale value by the said date, the Earnest Money Deposit will be forfeited, as per condition No. (6) of the Conditions of Sale.
Subsequently, the petitioner sent a letter on 03.12.2003 stating that they were not given a detailed inventory of the list of every box in Lot No. 315.
Respondents stated that it was impossible as there were 858 carton boxes inside the 40 feet container and the goods were sold in auction on "as is where is" condition and with full knowledge the petitioner had participated in the auction.
The petitioner's letter dated 03.12.2003 was rejected as being an afterthought.
In these circumstances, the petition has been filed.
The High Court inter alia observed -
++ Firstly, the nature of transaction entered into between the petitioner, Customs Department and the Professional Auctioneers is a private contract and merely because, goods were auctioned, for and on behalf of the Customs Department, the same cannot be construed as a statutory contract so as to make the provisions amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
++ Court is of the considered view that the demand made by the petitioner is purely an afterthought because at no particular point of time the petitioner sought for a detailed inventory list and with full knowledge, having participated in the auction and having been declared as the highest bidder and remitted the Earnest Money Deposit, the present attempt of the petitioner is to, somehow, wriggle out of the transaction and at the same time, to get back the Earnest Money Deposit.
Concluding that the prayer sought is thoroughly misconceived,the Writ petition was held as not maintainable and dismissed.
(See 2017-TIOL-2043-HC-MAD-CUS )
