2015 (11) TMI 764 - HC - Customs

Application for request to enforce the terms of the facility Notice No.69 of 2011 dated 20 May 2011 issued by the respondent - Held that - Relation between the importers and the Shipping lines is purely contractual which is by virtue of a contract between these parties, the contract being a contract of carriage of goods and thus it would be outside the purview of the powers of the Customs Officer to in any manner give any directions and/or intervene in any such dispute between the shipping lines and the importer. - The petitioners grievance is definitely contractual and thus the petitioners would not be correct in contending that the respondents are acting in breach of any statutory provisions or any rules made in that behalf affecting legal rights of the petitioners. We are not shown any statutory provisions or any rule which confers any legal right on the petitioners or the importers and the same being infringed at the hands of the respondents so as to enable us to exercise our writ jurisdiction. Various letters as addressed by the petitioners to the respondents as also specific grievance as urged in the petition and more particularly in para 3 (vi) clearly indicate that the dispute is in regard to the payment of terminal charges, security deposit etc which are completely within the purview of a private contract which the importer has with the Shipping lines. The petitioner is not remediless to seek enforcement of its legal rights under the contract with the shipping lines if they are aggrieved as such. We are therefore, certain that the reliefs as prayed for by the petitioners cannot be granted. - no reason to interfere in the present writ petition except to the extent of accepting the statement as made by Mr.Jetley on behalf of the respondents that the goods on their arrival are taken to the CFS of the choice as given by the importers/Clearing House Agents in terms of facility Notice No.69 of 2011 - Petition disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
Petition seeking direction to enforce facility notice for container movement operations. Alleged non-adherence to facility notices by shipping lines causing additional charges. Dispute over conditions imposed by shipping lines. Customs department's stance on contractual nature of the issue. Interpretation of statutory powers under Customs Act, 1962 regarding facility notices.

Analysis:

1. The petitioners, importers dealing in plastic raw materials, filed a petition under Article 226 seeking enforcement of a facility notice issued by the respondent to regulate container movement operations. The facility notice required shipping lines to indicate the chosen Container Freight Station (CFS) for delivery of imported goods. Allegations were made that shipping lines were not complying with the notice, leading to additional charges for the petitioners during goods clearance.

2. The petitioners claimed to have adhered to the terms of the facility notices, intimating shipping lines of the selected CFS for goods delivery. They highlighted conditions imposed by shipping lines, such as surrendering original Bill of Lading, payment of terminal charges, security deposits, and other charges. Despite representations to the respondent to stop such actions by shipping lines, no response was received, prompting the petitioners to approach the court.

3. The respondents contended that the issue was a private contractual dispute between importers and shipping lines, falling outside the Customs Act, 1962's purview. They argued that the facility notices aimed to facilitate trade and early clearance of goods, emphasizing that the dispute over additional charges was contractual in nature and not subject to Customs Officers' intervention.

4. The Court observed that facility notices were issued to facilitate efficient container movement for early goods clearance, with a specific procedure outlined in Notice No.69 of 2011. The grievances raised by the petitioners did not align with the facility notices' scope, preventing the respondents from intervening in the contractual dispute between importers and shipping lines.

5. The Court determined that the relationship between importers and shipping lines was contractual, beyond the Customs Officer's powers to issue directions or intervene in disputes. The petitioners' grievances were contractual in nature, involving terminal charges, security deposits, etc., falling under private contracts with shipping lines. As such, the Court concluded that the relief sought by the petitioners could not be granted.

6. The Court accepted the respondents' assurance that goods would be transported to the chosen CFS as per the facility notice, thereby disposing of the writ petition without costs.