ORDER
Manmohan Sarin, J.
1. Petitioner, by this writ petition, seeks quashing of the auction notice dated 2-4-2004 and the auction proceedings, issued by Respondent No. 3. Petitioner also seeks quashing of order dated 11-3-2004, passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Customs, confirming the demand of custom duty of Rs. 13,95,063/- together with interest @ 24% per cent per annum for failure to fulfill condition No. 6 of Notification No. 30/97 and the failure to submit export obligation discharge certificate, required under the EXIM policy.
2. Issue notice to the respondents to show cause as to why rule nisi be not issued. Mr. Naveen Chawla accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. As only a short point is involved, with the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.
3. The impugned order dated 11-2-2004, quashing of which has been sought, relates to the goods imported at Delhi and which already stand cleared. The demand is of duty for failure to fulfill the conditions of notification and the requirement of EXIM policy as noted above. The auction notice (Annexure P-2), is the public notice issued for auction of the goods at the Container Depot, Moradabad (U.P.). The auction was scheduled for 22-4-2004. Petitioner seeks quashing of this notice as well as of auction proceedings. The petition, unfortunately, does not give particulars of the goods or consignments, which are pending clearance at Moradabad, U.P. and in respect of which petitioner may have apprehension of their being auctioned.
4. Mr. Ravinder Sethi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner’s apprehension is that for non-compliance with the demand of Rs. 13,95,063/- goods of the petitioner at Moradabad could not be auctioned.
5. Mr. Naveen Chawla, Counsel for the respondents, submits that petitioner cannot use the order dated 11-2-2004 for seeking stay with regard to the disposal or of auction of the goods, which are at Moradabad. Mr. Chawla is right in his submission, since no particulars of the goods or imports with reference to the bill of entry have been mentioned or furnished in the writ petition. Petitioner has come to the Court, based on a public notice that was published.
6. At this stage, Mr. Ravinder Sethi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, offers that petitioner would deposit the sum of Rs. 13,95,063/- together with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of clearance till the date of payment within 15 days from today. Let the above amount together with interest @ 24% per annum be deposited with the respondents within 15 days from today. In case, there were any goods of the petitioner at Moradabad, which have been auctioned 22-4-2004 on account of the impugned order dated 11-3-2004, the sale in respect of the same, be not confirmed, pending deposit of the aforesaid amount. It is made clear that in case the auction of any goods, belonging to the petitioner at Moradabad was on account of any violation or breach of any provisions other than the impugned order, the same shall not be given the benefit of this order. Petitioner may avail of the statutory remedies, as available to impugn the order dated 11-3-2004.
Writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.