2018 (10) TMI 1576 - HC - Customs

Liability of demurrage charges - the charges arose on account the malafide action on the part of the Respondent-Revenue in not accepting the transactional value declared of goods imported - Held that - Mere fact that the Respondent do not release the goods as they were in the process of filing an Appeal to the Supreme Court, would not by itself lead to the conclusion that the decision was malafide - All this is matter of evidence and can be best adjudicated before the Civil Court by leading evidence. It requires determination of factual issues. Petition not entertained - the remedy, if any, available to the Petitioner, is to file a suit in a Civil Court where above aspect can be considered.

Summary

Issues:
Claim for reimbursement of demurrage and detention charges due to delay in releasing imported goods by the Revenue.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ to direct the Revenue to reimburse demurrage charges amounting to ?2,19,01,902 along with interest. The demurrage charges were incurred due to the Revenue's alleged malafide action of not accepting the declared transactional value of imported goods in February 2013. This led to a delay in clearing the goods stored in the Container Depot, despite the Tribunal upholding the petitioner's contention regarding the correct transactional value. The Revenue's delay in allowing the release of goods, pending an appeal to the Supreme Court, resulted in the petitioner incurring demurrage charges. The petitioner relied on Circular No. 42 of 2001 and a Supreme Court decision to argue that the Revenue's actions were unreasonable and malafide.

The court noted that the mere fact that the Revenue did not release the goods due to an ongoing appeal to the Supreme Court did not automatically imply malafide intent. The court emphasized that such matters require factual evidence and are best adjudicated in a Civil Court. Consequently, the court declined to entertain the petition, suggesting that the petitioner pursue the matter through a civil suit where the factual issues can be examined thoroughly. However, the court clarified that the time spent pursuing the petition would be excluded from the limitation period under Section 15 of the Limitation Act, 1963, if the Revenue raises a plea of limitation. Ultimately, the petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.