2015 (10) TMI 2030 - HC - Customs

Waiver of detention and storage charges No response given by Second Respondent to letter of Assistant Commissioner dated 06.08.2015; thus complaint lodged by petitioner on 11.08.2015 to Commissioner of Customs Nothing moved since then Held That - Second Respondent directed to pass appropriate orders for waiver of demurrage charges upto 14.08.2015 on recommendation of First Respondent vide letter dated 06.08.2015 Order to be passed within four weeks Decided in favour of Petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Compliance with directions issued by the appellate authority regarding handling of cargo in customs areas regulations.
2. Confiscation of goods under Customs Act and Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
3. Reduction of redemption fine and penalty by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals).
4. Non-granting of waiver of detention and storage charges.
5. Delay in responding to waiver of demurrage charges by the 2nd respondent.
6. Lack of representation for the 2nd respondent.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a Writ of mandamus to direct the 1st respondent to ensure compliance by the 2nd respondent with directions issued by the appellate authority and Regulation 6(1) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations 2009 within a reasonable time frame.

2. The goods declared as medical equipment were subjected to examination, leading to confiscation of goods worth &8377; 5,220 under the Customs Act and Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The redemption fine and penalty imposed were later reduced by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) to &8377; 50,000 and &8377; 10,000 respectively. The Assistant Commissioner issued a waiver certificate for detention and demurrage charges, but full waiver was not granted until goods clearance, leading to an appeal for the same.

3. The petitioner argued for waiver of demurrage charges, citing a letter from the Assistant Commissioner recommending waiver up to a certain date. Despite lodging a complaint with the Commissioner of Customs, no action was taken by the 2nd respondent, prompting the petitioner to approach the Court.

4. During the hearing, only the counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent were present, with no representation for the 2nd respondent.

5. The Court directed the 2nd respondent to consider the letter and complaint mentioned, and pass appropriate orders regarding the waiver of demurrage charges within four weeks from the date of the order.

6. The judgment disposed of the writ petition with directions for the 2nd respondent to address the waiver of demurrage charges promptly, emphasizing compliance with the appellate authority's directions and regulations.