2019 (8) TMI 750 - HC - Customs

Demand of duty on transportation of consignments - petitioner was earlier assured that goods will be delivered at Chennai Port without demanding any further payment - HELD THAT - While it may be appropriate for the writ petitioner to proceed against Respondents 3 and 4 pursuant to aforesaid legal notice, it may not also be out of place to direct the second respondent to send a reply to the aforesaid undated communication (signed on 11.02.2019), which his now available at Page 9 of the typed-set of papers. This Court directs the Revenue Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents 1 and 2 to forward a copy of the aforesaid undated communication (signed on 11.02.2019) to the second respondent forthwith with a further direction to the second respondent to send a suitable reply to the writ petitioner under due acknowledgement within 10 working days from today - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues: Dispute over payment for clearing goods transported from Brunei to India; Allegations against private respondents demanding money; Communication sent to second respondent regarding the issue.

Analysis:
1. Dispute over Payment for Clearing Goods: The petitioner, who had moved from Brunei to India, entrusted his personal effects in 41 cartons to a professional mover for transportation to Chennai Port. Upon arrival, the petitioner was demanded a sum of money by the third and fourth respondents, Team Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd. and Cargo Consol India Pvt. Ltd. respectively, for clearing the goods. The petitioner contested the demand, stating he was not liable to pay these amounts.

2. Communication to Second Respondent: The petitioner had sent a legal notice to the third and fourth respondents, and a communication complaining about the demand to the second respondent. However, the second respondent claimed they never received this communication. The Revenue Counsel for official respondents 1 and 2 clarified that the Customs Department had no involvement with the private respondents 3 and 4.

3. Court's Directions: The court, after considering the submissions, directed the Revenue Counsel to forward a copy of the communication to the second respondent and instructed the second respondent to send a suitable reply to the petitioner within 10 working days. The court disposed of the writ petition with these directions, emphasizing no costs to be incurred.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the payment dispute for clearing goods, the communication sent to the second respondent, and the lack of involvement of the Customs Department with the private respondents. The court's directions aimed to facilitate a response from the second respondent and resolve the issue raised by the petitioner regarding the demands made by the private respondents.