2023 (12) TMI 87 - HC - Customs

Seeking prohibition from continuing the illegal investigations and from acting in an arbitrary manner, and to cease causing continued and repeated harassment to the Petitioner - seeking release of the goods detained by the DRI and waiver off the demurrage charges incurred by the Petitioner due to the continuous illegal detention - HELD THAT - It is manifest that the detention of goods cannot be said to be unjustified. The record further reflects that the petitioner was not the original importer and only appeared subsequently before the respondents claiming to be the beneficial owner of the subject goods. Tested on facts and the principles enumerated by the Supreme Court in Mumbai Port Trust 2017 (7) TMI 977 - SUPREME COURT , there are no justification to grant the reliefs as prayed for in the writ petition. Undisputedly, by the time the instant writ petition was taken up for consideration, it is informed that the goods had already been released and that the exercise of valuation had also been concluded - the prayers as framed in the writ petition are clearly rendered infructuous. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
The issues involved in the judgment are the detention of goods, jurisdiction of proceedings, release of detained goods, waiver of demurrage charges, and legality of orders recalled.

Detention of Goods:
The writ petition sought relief from continuing illegal investigations and arbitrary actions causing harassment, declaring detention proceedings as null and void, and directing release of detained goods. The Court allowed the petition, noting the absence of irregularities and expressing no objection for release upon payment of differential duty. The respondents moved review petitions objecting to the release of goods and direction for demurrage charges borne by Customs authorities and DRI. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Mumbai Port Trust, the Court recalled the previous orders.

Release of Detained Goods and Waiver of Demurrage Charges:
A miscellaneous application was filed for appropriate directions as the goods were not released despite court orders. The Court directed the release of goods within a week and ordered Customs authorities and DRI to deposit a sum of Rs.50 lakhs. Respondents sought recall of orders based on the Mumbai Port Trust judgment, arguing against liability for demurrage charges unless detention was wholly unreasonable or mala fide. The Court recalled the orders dated 19 September 2018 and 29 October 2018.

Jurisdiction of Proceedings and Valuation of Goods:
Respondent DRI detained goods due to importation using IEC codes of persons other than the petitioner. The petitioner claimed ownership after a delay, and valuation revealed undervaluation by over 500%. The petitioner accepted the valuation but failed to provide evidence of an agreement with the original IEC holder. The detention was found justified based on the facts presented, and the petitioner's claim for relief was rejected.

Legality of Orders Recalled:
After recalling the previous orders, the respondent filed an affidavit detailing the detention and valuation process. The goods were released, and the valuation was accepted by the petitioner. The Court found no justification for the reliefs sought in the writ petition, rendering prayers (a) and (b) infructuous. The petition was dismissed, leaving open the option for the respondents to recover demurrage charges in accordance with the law.