1997 (9) TMI 119 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Issuance of Customs Detention Certificate.
2. Refund of excess demurrage charges.
3. Inaction and delay by the respondents.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Issuance of Customs Detention Certificate:
The petitioner in W.P. No. 4152 of 1988 and W.P. No. 4171 of 1988 requested the issuance of a Customs Detention Certificate for goods detailed in their respective Bills of Entry. The petitioner claimed that the goods were unnecessarily detained by the second respondent for verification and compliance with Import Trade Control Formalities. Despite the goods being detained from 1-4-1986, the Customs Department only issued a detention certificate for the period from 11-4-1986 to 28-4-1986. The court noted that the second respondent had not provided any justification for not issuing the detention certificate for the entire period of detention, especially since the goods were detained for verification and analytical tests, and nothing incriminating was found. Therefore, the court directed the second respondent to issue a detention certificate for the period from 1-4-1986 to 30-5-1986, excluding the already certified period.

2. Refund of Excess Demurrage Charges:
The petitioner sought a refund of the excess demurrage charges collected by the third respondent. The third respondent argued that demurrage charges were collected as per regulations after the expiry of free days, and remission was given only for the period covered by the issued detention certificate. The court found that the third respondent had acted within its rights based on the available detention certificate. However, the court directed that upon issuance of the complete detention certificate by the second respondent, the third respondent should consider the petitioner's claim for a refund of the excess demurrage charges and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

3. Inaction and Delay by the Respondents:
The court observed significant delays and inaction by the second respondent, who neither responded to the petitioner's communications nor filed a counter affidavit in the writ petitions. The court drew an adverse inference against the second respondent for failing to issue a detention certificate for the entire period of detention without justification. The court emphasized that the petitioners should not suffer due to the respondents' inaction and directed the second respondent to issue the necessary detention certificate within eight weeks. The court also noted that despite multiple counsels appearing for respondents 1 and 2, no counter affidavit or argument was presented, further justifying the adverse inference.

Conclusion:
The court ordered the second respondent to issue a detention certificate for the period from 1-4-1986 to 30-5-1986, excluding the period already certified. Upon issuance of the detention certificate, the petitioners were directed to apply to the third respondent for a refund of the excess demurrage charges, which the third respondent must consider and resolve within eight weeks. The writ petitions were ordered on these terms without costs.