9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Detention and Release of Containers 2. Financial Loss and Damages 3. Compliance with Customs Circular Issue-Wise Analysis: 1. Detention and Release of Containers: The petitioners, a shipping company and its agent, sought the release of nine containers detained at the Inland Container Depot (ICD) in Tughlakabad, New Delhi. The containers were held by the Customs authorities despite the petitioners not being involved in the legality of the import/export of the goods contained within. The Customs authorities at Bombay had requested the petitioners to re-export the containers, but the New Delhi authorities were unwilling to release them due to space constraints and pending investigations. The respondents admitted to having no objection to returning the containers but cited a lack of spare containers to transfer the goods as the reason for the delay. The court found the prolonged detention of five years without justification to be arbitrary and directed the respondents to release the containers within four months. 2. Financial Loss and Damages: The petitioners claimed financial losses due to the detention of the containers, which incurred leasing charges of approximately $3 per day per container. Over five years, this amounted to several lakhs of rupees. The court acknowledged the petitioners' suffering due to the loss of profit from the use of the containers in their business. Although the respondents might contend they are not liable for damages, the court emphasized the necessity of returning the containers to avoid further litigation on the matter of compensation. 3. Compliance with Customs Circular: The court referenced the CBE & C Circular No. 84/95, which mandates that detained cargo should be moved to a customs warehouse to facilitate the release of containers. The circular aimed to prevent long detentions that cause hardship to importers and container agents and block valuable space at ports. The court noted that the respondents had a duty to follow this circular and found their failure to do so contributed to the undue delay in releasing the containers. The court directed the respondents to comply with the circular and release the containers promptly. Conclusion: The court allowed the writ petition, directing the respondents to release the nine containers within four months. The prolonged detention was deemed unjustified and arbitrary, and the respondents were reminded of their duty to comply with the relevant customs circular to prevent such delays in the future. The issue of potential damages was acknowledged but left open for further litigation if necessary. The petitioners were granted relief without any costs.
|
