2018 (6) TMI 84 - HC - Customs

Auction - matter pending adjudication - Release of consignment of imported goods - the petitioner sent a letter dated 22.4.2018 (Annexure P-17) to respondent No.2 not to auction the goods as the matter was pending adjudication before the competent authority, but no response has been received till date - release the consignment of imported goods comprising of Re-Rollable Steel Scrap Imported and to waive the amount of demurrage/detention charges - Held that - We dispose of the present petition by directing respondent No.2 to take a decision on the letter dated 22.4.2018 (Annexure P-17), in accordance with law by passing a speaking order and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.

Summary

Issues:
Petition for quashing an order regarding imported goods and waiver of charges.

Analysis:
The petitioner, engaged in the import and trading of Steel Scrap, sought a writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India to quash an order dated 20.10.2017 and requested the release of an imported consignment of Re-Rollable Steel Scrap along with waiving demurrage/detention charges. The petitioner had declared and paid customs duty amounting to ` 7,81,399 at the time of filing the Bill of Entry. The goods were inspected, and it was found that they contained heavy metals within the prescribed limit as per Hazardous Waste Management rules. A series of letters and appeals were filed by the petitioner against the confiscation of goods and imposition of fines and penalties. Eventually, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and ordered the release of goods without any redemption fine and penalty. Subsequently, the goods were permitted out of charge without any levy of redemption fine and penalty, but ground rent detention charges were demanded. The petitioner requested for detention certificate to take delivery of goods, but faced delays and issues from the respondents.

The petitioner's counsel argued that despite sending letters and requests, no action had been taken by respondent No.2 on the relief claimed in the writ petition. After hearing the petitioner's counsel, the Court disposed of the petition by directing respondent No.2 to make a decision on the letter dated 22.4.2018 within one month from the receipt of the order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The Court refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case but emphasized the need for a decision by respondent No.2 in accordance with the law.