9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Seizure and confiscation of goods by Customs Authorities 2. Liabilities of parties regarding payment of port and demurrage charges Analysis: 1. The petitioner initially raised a dispute regarding the seizure and confiscation of goods by Customs Authorities. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) set aside the confiscation order, converting the dispute into one concerning the liabilities of the parties regarding port and demurrage charges. The petitioner imported three consignments, with two consignments seized in June 1992. Show cause notices were issued alleging contravention of Customs Act and Imports and Exports (Control) Act. The Additional Collector of Customs confiscated the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) remanded the cases due to violation of natural justice and incorrect confiscation under Section 111(d). The adjudicating officer decided to release the goods in March 1994, leading to disputes over communication and payment of charges. 2. The judge noted the Customs Act's provisions regarding disposal, seizure, and confiscation of goods. The Customs Authorities' lack of clarity in the confiscation orders and show cause notices raised a controversy. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) found a violation of natural justice and set aside the confiscation orders. The judge observed that the Customs Authorities did not properly exercise jurisdiction in confiscating the goods, as evidenced by the appellate authority's findings. 3. The key consideration was whether the petitioners should be liable for port and demurrage charges after the Customs Authorities' actions. The judge questioned the justification of the initial seizure and subsequent confiscation by Customs Authorities. If the Customs Authorities' actions were found unjustified, should the petitioners still be held accountable for charges? Additionally, the judge pondered whether the Port Authority could release goods based solely on a Retention Certificate without claiming port and demurrage charges. 4. The judge emphasized the importance of thoroughly examining the issues in light of relevant legal provisions. While acknowledging the petitioners' contribution to delays, the judge ordered the immediate release of goods upon payment of duties and bank charges. The petitioners were directed to pay one-third of calculated port and demurrage charges to the Port Authorities within two weeks, with the Customs Authorities responsible for the remaining two-thirds. 5. The judge directed the Port Authorities to calculate and communicate the charges to both parties. Upon payment as per the directions, the goods were to be released. The petitioners were required to provide an undertaking regarding potential duty payment if the writ application failed. The matter was scheduled for further hearing, with a rejection of the Customs Authorities' oral prayer for a stay of the order's operation. All parties were instructed to act on a signed copy of the order.
|
