9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (2) TMI 311 - HC - CustomsLevy of Demurrage Charges - whether the second respondent was justified in insisting on payment of demurrage charges when the petitioner approaches them for clearance of the goods? - issuance of waiver certificate or not - HELD THAT - In the case on hand, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in TRIP COMMUNICATION PVT. LTD, M/S. KRISHNARAJ IMPORTS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA OTHERS 2014 (4) TMI 101 - DELHI HIGH COURT contended that the aforesaid regulation would come to the rescue of the petitioner only if he can show that he was not at fault. I express my respectful disagreement with the aforesaid view. The language of the regulation is simple and plain. When the goods remain seized or detained by the Customs authority and the petitioner is not able to clear them, he should not be charged any rent or demurrage for the said period. The petitioner cannot be made liable to make any payment towards detention or demurrage for the period up to 19.02.2020. The petitioner would have become fully liable to pay the charges as demanded by the second respondent, if the second respondent had originally taken a reasonable stand. It is seen that the petitioner was ready to clear the goods then and there. But the second respondent was insisting that the petitioner should pay even for the period during which the department proceedings were pending. It is beyond dispute that seizure was effected on 24.09.2019 and the proceedings got concluded only on 19.02.2020 - the petitioner cannot be made liable to pay any demurrage charges for this period. Whether the first respondent should be directed to issue Detention Certificate recommending waiver of demurrage and detention charges as prayed for? - HELD THAT - It has been the practice of the authority to issue certificate when the circumstances warrant and when directed by the Court. Since the petitioner has made out a case, the first respondent is directed to issue detention certificate as sought for. Such certificate will be issued within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petition allowed.
Issues:
1. Import of goods declared as Aluminium Scrap but also contained e-waste. 2. Confiscation order issued by the first respondent. 3. Request for re-export of e-waste by the appellate authority. 4. Dispute over demurrage and detention charges with the second respondent. 5. Justification of second respondent in demanding payment for charges. 6. Interpretation of regulations regarding demurrage and detention charges. 7. Direction for issuance of Detention Certificate by the first respondent. Analysis: 1. The petitioner imported goods declared as Aluminium Scrap but also containing e-waste, leading to seizure by the authorities and initiation of adjudication proceedings. The first respondent passed an order for confiscation, prompting the petitioner to appeal to the Commissioner of Customs(Appeals), Coimbatore. The appellate authority directed the re-export of the e-waste alongside Aluminium Scrap. 2. The consignment remained with the second respondent, who demanded payment of detention and demurrage charges before releasing the goods. The petitioner sought a writ petition to compel the Customs authority to issue a detention certificate. The contest primarily revolved around the petitioner and the second respondent regarding waiver of charges. 3. The second respondent argued that substantial expenses were incurred in maintaining the container freight station and insisted on payment of demurrage charges. However, the petitioner cited a previous case law to support their claim for waiver of demurrage and detention charges, emphasizing the responsibility of the Customs Cargo Service provider not to charge rent or demurrage on seized or detained goods. 4. The court disagreed with the second respondent's contention that the regulation protecting the petitioner from charges applied only if the petitioner was not at fault. The judgment clarified that when goods are seized or detained by Customs authority, the petitioner should not be charged any rent or demurrage for that period, regardless of fault. 5. The court held that the petitioner should not be liable for any payment towards detention or demurrage charges up to the date of the appellate authority's order. Acknowledging the second respondent's hardship, the court facilitated an agreement where the petitioner agreed to pay a specified amount towards demurrage and detention charges. 6. The judgment directed the first respondent to issue a Detention Certificate recommending the waiver of demurrage and detention charges requested by the petitioner. The court emphasized that while regulations may not explicitly provide for such certificates, there was no prohibition against issuing them, especially when circumstances warranted, as demonstrated by past practices and court directives.
|
