Customs’ Auction Materials Not as per T&C of Sale: Madras HC Orders Consideration of Bidder’s Refund Representation with Interest [Read Order]
The Court clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s refund claim. However, it directed the customs authorities to consider and dispose of the representation within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the Court’s order.
![Customs’ Auction Materials Not as per T&C of Sale: Madras HC Orders Consideration of Bidder’s Refund Representation with Interest [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2025/08/02/2072406-customs-auction-dispute.webp "Customs’ Auction Materials Not as per T&C of Sale: Madras HC Orders Consideration of Bidder’s Refund Representation with Interest [Read Order]")
In a recent order, the Madras High Court directed the Customs Department to consider, on merits, a refund representation submitted by a successful auction bidder who declined to take possession of goods allegedly not conforming to the terms and conditions of sale. The petitioner, M/s. Ravi International Exports and Imports, approached the Court seeking a direction to...
In a recent order, the Madras High Court directed the Customs Department to consider, on merits, a refund representation submitted by a successful auction bidder who declined to take possession of goods allegedly not conforming to the terms and conditions of sale.
The petitioner, M/s. Ravi International Exports and Imports, approached the Court seeking a direction to the Customs authorities for refund of a security deposit of ₹3,07,999, along with applicable interest.
Practical Case Studies in Forensic Accounting & Corporate Fraud Investigation - Click Here
The matter was heard by Justice Abdul Quddhose, who noted that the petitioner had participated in a customs auction conducted by the Chennai IV Commissionerate and deposited the said amount on 26.09.2023.
Although the petitioner emerged as a successful bidder, it was claimed that the materials offered during the auction did not comply with the terms set forth in the sale notice. Consequently, the petitioner refused to accept the goods and submitted a refund request on 05.08.2024. However, no action was taken by the customs authorities on the representation, prompting the present writ petition.
During the hearing, Senior Panel Counsel Mr. Rajendran Raghavan and Junior Panel Counsel Mr. J. Nalinidhar appeared for the customs department and accepted notice.
After reviewing the submissions, the Court noted that if the petitioner's representation was reviewed and determined in compliance with the law, there would be no harm to the department.
Complete practical guide to Drafting Commercial Contracts, Click Here
The Court clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s refund claim. However, it directed the customs authorities to consider and dispose of the representation dated 05.08.2024 within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the Court’s order.
The decision is to be taken on merits and in accordance with law, including the issue of interest on the security deposit. Accordingly, with this direction, the writ petition was disposed of.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
