2020 (2) TMI 968 - HC - Customs

Maintainability of appeal - appropriate forum - Order of seizure passed by the Superintendent of Customs - demurrage charge - Jurisdiction to pass order u/s 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - The Petitioner, on instructions, states that the Petitioner would file an appeal to the Appellate Authority in the light of the decision of this Court in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT -I) MUMBAI VERSUS S.S. OFFSHORE PVT. LTD. 2017 (12) TMI 1460 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT - The Petitioner has sought to raise various legal questions such as authority of the Officer who passed the order under section 110A of the Act, the validity of the seizure under section 110 as also the issue regarding detention and demurrage charges. Keeping all the contentions of both the parties open, the petition is disposed off with liberty to the Petitioner to file an appeal.

Summary

Issues:
1. Preliminary objection on the order dated 17 June 2019 under section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Appeal maintainability against the order.
3. Legal questions raised by the Petitioner.
4. Authority of the Officer who passed the order.
5. Validity of seizure under section 110.
6. Issue regarding detention and demurrage charges.
7. Liberty to the Petitioner to file an appeal.
8. Respondents' stand on limitation objection.

Analysis:

The judgment delivered by the High Court of Bombay addressed multiple issues in the case. Firstly, the Respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the nature of the order dated 17 June 2019, contending that it falls under section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962. They argued that an appeal is maintainable against such an order, citing a previous decision by the Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Import-I v. S.S. Offshore Pvt.Ltd. The Petitioner, through their counsel, acknowledged this objection and expressed intent to file an appeal to the Appellate Authority, as per the Court's ruling in the case of S.S. Offshore Pvt.Ltd.

The Petitioner sought to raise various legal questions, including the authority of the Officer who passed the order under section 110A of the Act, the validity of the seizure under section 110, and the issue of detention and demurrage charges. The Court noted that all these issues could be contested before the Appellate Authority, providing the Petitioner with the liberty to file an appeal. Both parties' contentions were kept open, and the petition was disposed of with the mentioned liberty.

Furthermore, the Respondents' Senior Advocate assured that if the appeal is filed within two weeks, they would not raise an objection based on limitation. This stand of the Respondents was duly noted, indicating a cooperative approach to the procedural aspects of the case. Overall, the judgment emphasized the parties' rights to appeal, the scope of legal questions to be addressed, and the importance of timely action in the legal process.