2020 (3) TMI 1063 - HC - Customs

Permission to petitioner or persons claiming under it to destuff the cargo from the containers - refrain and desist from demanding, collecting or in any way recovering or appropriating' container detention charges' and 'ground rent' or any other charges - HELD THAT - It is yet to be decided whether the definition of the importer has to be strictly interpreted in the manner as attempted to be put across at this stage when the matter has been referred to a larger bench. This court cannot change the terms and conditions of the contract and supplement the same as has been attempted to be done. Petition dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Request to destuff cargo and move it to economical storage.
2. Permission to make necessary filings electronically or manually.
3. Prevention of respondents from demanding container detention charges and ground rent.
4. Direction for respondents to collect charges from the second respondent.
5. Other incidental reliefs.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Request to destuff cargo and move it to economical storage:
The petitioner, a company registered in Vietnam, sought a writ of mandamus to allow destuffing of cargo from containers covered by specific Bills of Lading and to move it to more economical storage. The petitioner also requested permission to sell the cargo to an interested buyer to avoid further container retention charges and tariffs. The court noted the petitioner's reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in Rasiklal Kantilal & Co. v. Board of Trustee of Port of Bombay, which emphasized that the title to goods vests with the petitioner until the consignee lifts the goods and makes the payment. However, the court found no merit in the petitioner's submission due to the lack of evidence regarding the insurance contract and the procedural requirements under the Customs Act.

2. Permission to make necessary filings electronically or manually:
The petitioner also sought permission to make necessary filings either electronically through the Customs Automated System (ICEGATE) or manually. The court did not find any specific cause of action or necessity for this relief, as the petitioner had not demonstrated any hindrance in making such filings.

3. Prevention of respondents from demanding container detention charges and ground rent:
The petitioner requested the court to direct respondents to refrain from demanding container detention charges and ground rent. The court observed that the petitioner had not provided evidence of any demand for such charges from the customs department. The court also noted that the petitioner could seek remedies through arbitration if permissible by law, especially in the absence of insurance cover.

4. Direction for respondents to collect charges from the second respondent:
The petitioner sought a direction for respondents to collect container detention charges and ground rent from the second respondent. The court highlighted that the definition of 'importer' under the Customs Act includes the owner or beneficial owner of the goods. Since the second respondent had submitted the bill of entries, the court found no basis to replace the responsibility of the second respondent with the petitioner for the charges.

5. Other incidental reliefs:
The court considered the petitioner's request for other incidental reliefs but found no merit in granting them. The court emphasized that the petitioner had not demonstrated any cause of action or necessity for such reliefs.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that the petitioner had not provided sufficient evidence or cause for the requested reliefs. The court also noted that the issues raised by the petitioner could be addressed through arbitration or other appropriate legal proceedings. The judgment referenced inconsistencies in previous Supreme Court judgments regarding the liability for port charges and indicated that these issues were referred to a larger bench for resolution.

← Previous Next →