2020 (2) TMI 1374 - HC - Customs

Refund of demurrage charges - It is alleged by the petitioner that the demurrages were paid by the petitioner for no fault of the petitioner - whether the Court can direct the other respondents to pay/remit the demurrage charges? - HELD THAT - A bare reading of the above makes it abundantly clear, that the Customs authorities cannot direct waiver of demurrage, which can only be done by the custodian (the CCI here). Moreover, merely because the Customs authority expends a reasonable time in dispensation of their sovereign functions of search, seizure and investigation, cannot lead to transference of liability to pay demurrage, to the Customs authorities. Refund of excess Customs duty - HELD THAT - We are not inclined to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, when an alternative efficacious remedy for obtaining the refund claim is clearly prescribed in the statute. The petitioner cannot circumvent the statutory provisions by invoking the writ jurisdiction. Moreover, sub-section (3) of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, clearly suggests that, the claim for refund must be made in accordance with sub-section (2) of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. Hence, we are not inclined to exercise our writ jurisdiction regarding the petitioner s claim for refund. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund of demurrage charges paid by the petitioner.
2. Refund of excess Customs duty paid by the petitioner.

Refund of Demurrage Charges:
The petitioner sought a refund of demurrage charges paid to Container Corporation of India Ltd. (CCIL) amounting to ?8,36,027. The demurrages were allegedly paid due to no fault of the petitioner. The petitioner imported fertilizers for agriculture, and after Customs duty payment, faced delays and representations to release the goods. The court analyzed prior judgments and established that the Customs authorities cannot direct waiver of demurrage, as it is the custodian's (CCIL) prerogative. The court emphasized that even if the Customs seizure was unjustified, the importer must pay demurrage first and then seek reimbursement. The petitioner's plea for waiver was dismissed based on legal principles governing demurrage charges.

Refund of Excess Customs Duty:
The petitioner also claimed a refund of excess Customs duty amounting to ?2,03,987. However, the court noted that no prior refund application was made as per the Customs Act, 1962. The court highlighted that statutory provisions mandate following the prescribed refund claim process under Section 27(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. Citing legal precedent, the court emphasized that Article 226 of the Constitution should not be used to bypass statutory remedies unless in extraordinary circumstances. Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, the court reiterated that matters involving revenue with available statutory remedies should not bypass the established procedures. Consequently, the court dismissed the petitioner's claim for refund of excess Customs duty, citing the availability of statutory remedies and the need to discourage circumvention of statutory procedures.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking a refund of demurrage charges and excess Customs duty. The judgment clarified the limitations on the court's jurisdiction regarding waiver of demurrage charges and highlighted the necessity of following statutory refund claim procedures. The court's decision was based on legal principles, prior judgments, and the statutory framework governing customs duties and demurrage charges.