1979 (9) TMI 73 - HC - Customs

Demurrage charges - Customs authorities are bound to issue detention certificate - Detention certificate - Writ of mandamus - Detention order - Admissibility

Issues Involved:
1. Whether a mandamus could be issued to the Customs authorities to issue a detention certificate when the consignment is detained for customs purposes.
2. Whether the Customs authorities are under a legal duty to issue the detention certificate which can be enforced by a Writ of mandamus.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Mandamus for Detention Certificate:
The appellants imported steel plates under an import licence and filed the necessary bills of entry upon importation. The goods were detained by the Customs authorities for customs purposes. The appellants sought a detention certificate for the period of detention to claim a concessional rate of demurrage from the Port Trust authorities. The Customs authorities issued detention certificates for part of the period but refused for the remaining period, attributing the delay to the appellants' clearing agents. The appellants moved the court for a Writ of mandamus directing the Assistant Collector of Customs to issue the detention certificate for the refused period. The single Judge dismissed the writ petition based on a Division Bench decision in Collector of Customs v. M.P. Works, which held that there is no statutory or public duty on the Customs authorities to issue a detention certificate. The appellants challenged this decision, questioning the correctness of the Division Bench decision.

2. Legal Duty of Customs Authorities:
The Full Bench was tasked with reconsidering whether the Customs authorities have a statutory or public duty to issue a detention certificate. In Collector of Customs v. M.P. Works, the Division Bench held that Customs authorities are not obligated to issue a detention certificate, as there is no statutory or public duty under the Customs Act or the Madras Port Trust Act. The Division Bench reasoned that the public notice jointly issued by the Port Trust and Customs authorities indicated that refusal to grant a detention certificate is not appealable under the Customs Act, implying no statutory duty exists. However, the Full Bench disagreed, stating that the importer's right to a detention certificate flows from Section 17(1) of the Customs Act, which mandates that examination and testing by the proper officer be conducted without undue delay. This imposes a corresponding duty on the Customs authorities to issue a detention certificate if there is undue delay not attributable to the importer.

Reconsideration of Division Bench Decision:
The Full Bench found that the reasoning of the Division Bench in Collector of Customs v. M.P. Works was flawed. The Division Bench's reliance on the public notice was not decisive, as the importer's right to a detention certificate is derived from statutory provisions, not the public notice. The Full Bench emphasized that the Customs authorities' power to detain goods under Section 45 and the duty to examine goods without undue delay under Section 17 imposes a corresponding duty to issue a detention certificate if the delay is not due to the importer's fault. The Full Bench concluded that the Customs authorities are under a public duty to issue a detention certificate in such circumstances, and the Division Bench decision holding otherwise is not good law.

Conclusion:
The Full Bench allowed the writ appeal, set aside the dismissal of the writ petition, and restored the writ petition for disposal on merits. The Customs authorities' refusal to issue a detention certificate based on the alleged fault of the appellants was not examined by the single Judge, as the dismissal was solely based on the absence of statutory duty. The Full Bench directed the single Judge to dispose of the writ petition on merits, recognizing the public duty of Customs authorities to issue detention certificates under the relevant circumstances.

← Previous Next →