YOGESH KALIDAS SHAH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Shri Salve, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, shri R. K. Jain, learned senior counsel for the Bombay Port Trust and Shri p. H. Parekh, learned counsel for the auction-purchaser (respondent 5.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that pending customs clearance, the goods which were held by the Port Trust, were put up by the port authorities for sale on 22/11/1991 for the recovery of the port- charges. The sale elicited an offer of Rs. 32,22,000. 00 for the goods which in two lots "ee 4000" and "ee 4022" were said to contain "ball-bearings". That sale was, however, not confirmed as in the meanwhile the petitioner appears to have cleared the port-charges then due. The goods were again put up for auction on 26/05/1992 under what is called Walk-in Tender scheme. This time Rs. 20,37,000. 00 were offered by respondent 5. On June8, 1992. the Customs authorities required the Bombay Port Trust to withdraw the goods from auction until further instructions from the customs. But the Port Trust did not relent. On 2/07/1992, the Chairman of the Port Trust confirmed the sale.

(3.) The insistence of Shri Parekh, appearing for the auction-purchaser, on retaining the benefit of the sale is quite understandable as the goods which fetched an offer of Rs. 32,22,000. 00 were knocked down in favour of respondent 5 for Rs. 20,37,000. 00. We do not want to go into the problems of lack of coordination between the Customs authorities on the one hand and the port authorities on the other whether the latter could ignore the intimation of the former for deferring the sale. It would appear that the sale dated 26/05/1992 under the "wits" was for the recovery of the port charges which, according to the petitioner, was in the neighbourhood of rupees one lakh fifty thousand.