KRISHNA CREATIONS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. Geetha Rajasekar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Rajasekar, learned Senior Panel Counsel for respondents 1 and 2. Though notice has been served on the 3rd respondent and their name is also printed in the cause list, none appears for the 3rd respondent. Though the name of the counsel for the 4th respondent is printed in the cause list, there is no appearance on behalf of the 4th respondent also.

(2.) The petitioner seeks issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to return the Earnest Money Deposit of Rs. 1,62,000/- to the petitioner. The petitioner participated in the public auction conducted by Professional Auctioneers, namely, the 3rd respondent, 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 on 10-11-2003 and conveyed to the auctioneers on the same day. The petitioner had 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, 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 for extension of time. The request of the petitioner was obliged and time was extended upto 8-12-2003. The petitioner was intimated in no uncertain terms that if they do not pay the balance sale value on or before 8-12-2003, the Earnest Money Deposit will be forfeited, as per condition No. (6) of the Conditions of Sale.

(3.) Subsequently, the petitioner sent a letter on 3-12-2003 stating that they were not given a detailed inventory of the list of every box in Lot No. 315. Respondents 1 and 2 had stated that it is impossible for all purposes, as there were 858 carton boxes inside the 40 feet container and the goods were sold in the auction in "as is where is" condition and with full knowledge, the petitioner had participated in the auction and therefore, respondents 1 and 2 rejected the petitioner's letter dated 3-12-2003 as an afterthought. Now, the petitioner is before this Court seeking issuance of Writ of Mandamus to refund the forfeited Earnest Money Deposit.