U. PRINTS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to assail the decision of R -2/Commissioner of Customs dated 4 -2 -2013 alleged to be a rejection of the bid of the petitioner for certain lots in the auction held by R -3/Container Corporation of India on 30 -8 -2012. The consequential relief of release of goods has also been sought. It is the say of the petitioner that the bid made by the petitioner had been approved for the lots in question by R -3 subject to final approval of R -2 and the petitioner had already deposited the sum of Rs. 64,50,000/ -.

(2.) THE rejection of the bid has occurred without assigning any reasons for the same though the bid had been provisionally approved as far back as on 20 -9 -2012, the rejection has been made only on 4 -2 -2013 and the next auction scheduled for 13 -2 -2013.

(3.) WE are informed by the counter affidavit of R -2 that the first auction was held on 28/29 -3 -2012 by R -3 with a reserve price of Rs. 2.30 crores for all ten containers and the highest bid received was of Rs. 1.939 cores. The bid was rejected as it was below the reserve price and a second auction was held on 30 -4 -2012, but this time by reducing the reserve price by 10% to a sum of Rs. 2,18,40,000/ -. In this bid, the highest offer received was from M/s. Trade Link Impex for a bid of Rs. 3,21,53,330/ -, which was higher than the previous bid and also much higher than the early reserve price, leave aside the present reserve price. Not only that, the second highest bid of M/s. ARS Impex (at whose behest a complaint was made to R -2, which is alleged to have resulted in cancellation of the auction in question) was of Rs. 3,21,48,330/ - i.e. only less by a sum of Rs. 5,000/ -. The highest bidder, after depositing the Caution Money Deposit (CMD), failed to deposit the requisite Earnest Money Deposit (HMD) of 30% after confirmation of the bid in the e -auction. The CMD was thus forfeited but the bid was not offered to the second highest bidder. It has been stated by R -3 that apparently as per the CVC guidelines, re -auction has to take place even in such a situation, an aspect which would require closer scrutiny. In fact, after we noticed this aspect, a different plea is sought to be raised before us that the CVC guidelines prohibit a negotiation with H -2.