2016 (8) TMI 1513 - HC - Customs

Release of goods lying with the appellant-Port Trust - Muriate of Potash - HELD THAT - There appears to be some communication gap between the appellant-Port Trust and the second respondent-Customs authority. Though the Learned Counsel for the appellant-Port Trust has contended that the first respondent is liable to pay demurrage charges for the 20% of the goods detained, on the ground that there was no detention order passed by the Customs authority and no detention certificate was issued for the same, the Learned Counsel for the first respondent submitted that for no fault of them, the first respondent has been penalised or sought to be penalised by the appellant-Port Trust in spite of an application made in this regard for release of the 20% goods. Since it is now made clear by the second respondent-Customs authority that an order has been passed way back during January, 2016 and only for want of communication from the Customs authority, the appellant-Port Trust has not released the goods, we direct that the 20% of the goods, if not already released, be released by the appellant-Port Trust to the first respondent forthwith without any demurrage charges, as the same has to be waived of by the Port Trust authority - Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Confusion regarding retention of 20% of imported goods for verification/test, communication gap between Port Trust and Customs authority, liability for demurrage charges, release of detained goods, requirement of release certificate, and disposal of writ appeal.

Confusion regarding Retention of Goods:
The judgment addresses a situation where 20% of imported goods, Muriate of Potash, were retained by the Port Trust at the Customs authority's instance for verification/test, while 80% had already been released. The Court notes a communication gap between the Port Trust and Customs authority regarding the release of the remaining 20% of the goods.

Liability for Demurrage Charges:
The Port Trust claims that the first respondent should pay demurrage charges for the detained 20% of goods, citing the lack of a detention order or certificate from the Customs authority. The first respondent argues that they have been penalized despite applying for the release of the goods. The Customs authority confirms that an order for the release of the 20% goods was issued on 13-1-2016, even before 45 days had elapsed.

Release of Detained Goods:
The Court directs the Port Trust to release the 20% of goods to the first respondent without demurrage charges, as the delay was due to a lack of communication from the Customs authority. The Port Trust is instructed to obtain a copy of the order issued by the Customs authority in January 2016 for record purposes. The first respondent must produce a release certificate within six months of goods clearance to avoid demurrage charges.

Disposition of Writ Appeal:
The writ appeal is disposed of accordingly, with the directive for the release of goods and the requirement for a release certificate within a specified timeframe. The judgment concludes by closing the related miscellaneous petition and stating that no costs are awarded in the matter.