2019 (4) TMI 343 - HC - Customs

Release of consignments - issuance of Detention Certificate for waiver of Demurrage and Container Detention Charges in terms of Regulation 6(1)(1) of Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations 2008 - Held that - The petitioner will remit the entire duty component of the consignments imported by him in case were such duty is leviable as per paragraph 15(iii) above along with a bank guarantee for the 10% of the invoice value. In cases where the duty impact is neutral, the petitioner shall furnish a bank guarantee for the 10% of the invoice value. Upon satisfaction of the aforesaid conditions, the consignment shall be released forthwith. Waiver of Demurrage and Container Detention Charges - Held that - In the light of Rule 6(l) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009, which provides that the Customs Cargo Provider shall not, subject to any other law for the time being in force, charge any rent or demurrage on the goods seized or detained or confiscated by the Superintendent of Customs or Appraiser or Inspector of Customs or Preventive officer or examining officer, as the case may be, there shall be a waiver of demurrage charges. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Mandamus for the release of consignments.
2. Issuance of 'Detention Certificate' for waiver of Demurrage and Container Detention Charges.
3. Relevant date for reckoning the date of imports.
4. Embargo on the import of dhalls.
5. Embargo on the import of peas.
6. Waiver of demurrage charges.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Mandamus for the Release of Consignments:
The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus for the release of their consignments of peas and dhalls. The court referred to a previous order dated 27.02.2019 in W.P.No.4403 of 2019, which dealt with a similar issue. The court noted that the facts and defenses in the present cases were similar to those in the earlier case. The petitioners argued that their imports were made during the period when there was an interim stay on the relevant notifications, thus entitling them to the release of their consignments.

2. Issuance of 'Detention Certificate' for Waiver of Demurrage and Container Detention Charges:
The petitioners also sought a direction to the respondents to issue a 'Detention Certificate' for the waiver of Demurrage and Container Detention Charges under Regulation 6(1)(l) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations 2009. The court noted that the petitioners had relied on the interim stay granted by the court, which was in force at the time of the imports.

3. Relevant Date for Reckoning the Date of Imports:
The court addressed the issue of whether the relevant date for reckoning the date of imports would be the date of the Bill of Lading or the Bill of Entry. Regulation 9.11 of the Foreign Trade Policy specifies that the date of import is the date of the Bill of Lading. The court held that the Foreign Trade Policy is a complete code by itself, and the reference to section 15 of the Customs Act, which fixes the date for determining the rate of duty and tariff as the date of the Bill of Entry, was not relevant in this context.

4. Embargo on the Import of Dhalls:
The court noted that the import of dhalls was subject to restrictions under notifications issued by the Customs authorities. However, the operation of these notifications had been stayed by orders of the court. Therefore, there was no embargo on the import of dhalls in the present cases.

5. Embargo on the Import of Peas:
Similarly, the import of peas was restricted by notifications issued from April 2018 onwards. The court noted that the petitioners' imports were made during the period covered by the interim stay of the relevant notifications. The court held that the relevant date for reckoning the import of peas was the date of the Bill of Lading, and since the stay was in force at the time of import, there was no embargo on the import of peas.

6. Waiver of Demurrage Charges:
The court addressed the petitioners' request for a waiver of demurrage charges incurred due to the detention of their consignments. Under Rule 6(l) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009, the Customs Cargo Provider is not allowed to charge rent or demurrage on goods seized or detained by customs officers. Therefore, the court granted a waiver of demurrage charges.

Conclusion:
The court ordered the release of the consignments upon the petitioners remitting the entire duty component and furnishing a bank guarantee for 10% of the invoice value. The authorities were given the liberty to initiate proceedings regarding the transactions. The court also granted a waiver of demurrage charges in accordance with Rule 6(l) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009. The writ petitions were disposed of in these terms, with no costs.