9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 675 - HC - CustomsSeeking release of detained goods - waiver of detention charges in view of Section 10(1)(l) of the Sea Cargo Manifest and Trans Shipment Regulations, 2018 and Regulation 6(1)(i) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulation, 2009 - petitioner submitted that despite the stand of the Custom authorities in favour of the petitioners, the goods are not released because of the insistence of the respondents no.3 and 4-private parties, for payment of detention and demurage charges - HELD THAT - The stand of respondents no.3 and 4 could not be impediment in releasing the goods. The claim of detention and demurrage charges by the said private parties could be enforced by them by taking recourse to civil remedies in accordance with law, as may be permissible. However, the Court shall not express any opinion in that regard. Hence, without going into further factual details and merits of the case, the respondents are hereby directed to release the goods which are under their custody within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order - Even as the prayers other than release of goods are not pressed by the learned advocate for the petitioner, they could not have been granted by the Court. The goods shall however be released. Petition disposed off.
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment include detention cum demurrage waiver under Sea Cargo Manifest Regulation 2018, release of imported goods, compliance with Customs Act 1962, waiver of detention charges, wrongful arrest of cargo, auctioning of cargo, and communication between the parties. Detention cum Demurrage Waiver: The petitioner sought directions for the implementation of detention cum demurrage waiver under Sea Cargo Manifest Regulation 2018 for imported goods. The petitioner emphasized the release of the goods and highlighted the non-compliance by respondent No.3 in waiving detention charges despite directions from the Deputy Commissioner and Customs authorities. Release of Imported Goods: The petitioner, engaged in trading commodities, imported Regrind Plastic Bags and faced challenges with the release of goods held by respondent No.3 for examination. Despite clearance from authorities, respondent No.3 demanded detention charges, leading to a legal notice from the petitioner and a threat of auctioning the cargo by respondent No.4. The Court directed the release of goods within two weeks based on communications from Customs authorities. Compliance with Customs Act 1962: The judgment emphasized the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, regarding the release of goods and the enforcement of detention and demurrage charges by private parties through civil remedies. Respondent No.2 highlighted the contravention of Sea Cargo Manifest and Trans Shipment Regulations by respondent No.3 in charging detention fees. Waiver of Detention Charges: The petitioner requested the waiver of detention charges based on relevant regulations, including Section 10(1)(l) of the Sea Cargo Manifest and Trans Shipment Regulations, 2018, and Regulation 6(1)(i) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulations, 2009. Despite communications from Customs authorities directing the waiver, respondent No.3 continued to demand charges. Wrongful Arrest of Cargo and Auctioning: Respondent No.3 wrongfully detained the cargo and demanded detention charges, leading to a legal notice from the petitioner. Subsequently, respondent No.4 threatened to auction the cargo under the Customs Act, 1962. The Court directed the release of goods within two weeks, disregarding the claims of detention and demurrage charges by private parties. Communication and Court's Direction: The judgment highlighted the communications between the parties and the Court's direction to release the goods within two weeks, focusing solely on the release of goods and not addressing other prayers made by the petitioner. The Court emphasized that private parties could enforce detention and demurrage charges through civil remedies, while the release of goods was mandated by the Court's order.
|
