2021 (7) TMI 401 - HC - Customs

Seeking direction to comply the Detention Certificate dated 05.06.2018 issued by second respondent - direction to third respondent to refund the amounts collected by them at the time of clearance of the goods in question - whether any rent or demurrage on goods seized is charged collected or recovered by the Customs Cargo Service Provider? - HELD THAT - In the present cases the third respondent is the Cargo Service Provider and the petitioners have deposited some amount and seeks refund. The Customs authorities issued a certificate merely stating that the request of the Importer for waiver of Detention / Demurrage charges shall be considered from the date of filing of Bill of Entry till the date of clearance of the cargo - this Court has to examine the nature of the certificate issued by the Customs authorities under Regulation 6(1)(l) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations 2009. Definition of a certificate is that a document containing a certified statement especially as to the truth of something specifically a document certifying that one has fulfilled the requirements. Therefore the certificate issued under Regulation 6(1)(l) is to be construed for the purpose of eligibility for claiming refund pursuant to the conditions stipulated in Regulation 6(1)(l). In other words the Customs authorities certified that the importer or exporter is eligible to claim refund if any excess rent or demurrage is paid with reference to Regulation 6(1)(l) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations 2009. Whether issuance of a certificate would provide a cause for seeking the relief of refund directly under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? - HELD THAT - Presuming that the relief as such sought for in the present writ petitions is granted merely based on the Detention certificate in the absence of factual adjudication undoubtedly there is a possibility of commissions or omissions which may lead to miscarriage of Justice. Therefore the High Court need not go into such disputed facts merely based on the affidavits filed by the respective parties to the writ petition. Mere affidavit would not be sufficient to form an opinion regarding the disputed facts which all are to be made with reference to the documents and evidences and in consonance with the terms and conditions of the agreement or contract - This being the principles to be followed the Detention certificate issued by the Customs authorities is to be construed as an eligibility certificate for the purpose of claiming the benefit conferred under Regulation 6(1)(l) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations 2009 and the certificate would not confer any right on the holder of the certificate to claim refund without adjudication of the disputed facts and circumstances with reference to the terms and conditions of the agreement or contract. Such an adjudication cannot be done in a writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore for the purpose of adjudication the parties are bound to approach the competent forum and after resolving the disputes the refund or otherwise is to be granted by following the procedures as contemplated. The direction sought for in the writ petitions to direct the second respondent to direct the third respondent to make refund is coined with an idea to overcome the maintainability of writ petitions. Thus the prayer as such cannot be granted in view of the fact that the second respondent has already issued a Detention Certificate which is to be construed as eligible for the purpose of claiming refund from the third respondent. This apart the third respondents are Private party and no relief can ordinarily be entertained in a writ proceedings. All the writ petitions are maintainable. High Courts will not dismiss any writ petition as not maintainable. However the entertainability of a writ petition with reference to the facts and the principles of law is to be considered for granting the relief - This Court could able to form an opinion that the writ petitioners have not established any right for grant of the relief as such sought for in these writ petitions. The petition is dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petitions.
2. Obligation of the third respondent to refund amounts collected.
3. Interpretation and enforcement of the Detention Certificate under Regulation 6(1)(l) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009.
4. Requirement for adjudication of disputes between the parties.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the writ petitions:
The petitioners argued that the writ petitions are maintainable based on the Detention Certificate issued by the Customs authorities. They cited the case of Vanathi Exports Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Exports), Chennai, where the court held that writ petitions are maintainable under similar circumstances. The court acknowledged that High Courts do not dismiss writ petitions as not maintainable; however, the entertainability of the writ petition must be considered based on the facts and principles of law.

2. Obligation of the third respondent to refund amounts collected:
The petitioners sought a direction for the third respondent to refund the amounts collected during the clearance of goods, arguing that the Detention Certificate issued by the Customs authorities obligates the third respondent to refund the amount. The third respondent contended that the Detention Certificate alone does not provide a cause for the petitioners to claim a refund without further adjudication of the disputed facts and circumstances.

3. Interpretation and enforcement of the Detention Certificate under Regulation 6(1)(l) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009:
The court examined Regulation 6(1)(l), which states that the Customs Cargo Service Provider shall not charge any rent or demurrage on goods seized or detained by Customs authorities. The court clarified that the Detention Certificate is an eligibility certificate confirming the eligibility of an importer or exporter to claim a refund if excess rent or demurrage is paid. However, the certificate alone does not confer a right to seek a refund directly through a writ petition without adjudication of the disputed facts.

4. Requirement for adjudication of disputes between the parties:
The court emphasized that the disputes regarding the refund, including the amount of deposit, refund, and other charges, must be adjudicated based on the terms and conditions of the contract between the Customs Cargo Service Provider and the importer or exporter. The court noted that such adjudication cannot be done in a writ proceeding and must be resolved by approaching the competent forum. The court concluded that the Detention Certificate is merely an eligibility certificate and does not confer a right to claim a refund without resolving the disputes between the parties.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petitions, stating that the petitioners have not established any right for the relief sought. The Detention Certificate issued by the Customs authorities is to be construed as an eligibility certificate for claiming a refund, but it does not confer a right to get back the refund without resolving the disputes between the Service Provider and the importer or exporter. The court highlighted the necessity for adjudication of the disputed facts and circumstances before any refund can be granted.

← Previous Next →