2000 (4) TMI 44 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Claim for Mandamus to pay a sum with interest

Analysis:
The petitioner, a 100% export-oriented unit, was granted permission by the Government of India to import grinding machines for manufacturing purposes. The machines were imported but were seized by the Special Investigation Branch and later by the Department of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) under the Customs Act. The Collector of Customs sought to confiscate the goods, alleging they were not validly imported. However, after an investigation, the goods were released, and a Demurrage Waiver Certificate was issued by Customs, stating the detention was not due to the petitioner's fault. The petitioner sought a waiver of demurrage charges, but the Traffic Manager of the second respondent only allowed concessional demurrage charges for 150 days. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking relief due to the delay caused by the authorities.

The first respondent did not file a counter, while the second respondent stated that the detention was not due to any fault of the petitioner or themselves. They cleared the consignment after advising the clearing agent to avail the concession allowed for detention for Import Trade Control formalities. The court found that the petitioner had validly imported the machines and that the first respondent was not justified in seizing the goods. The Scale Rates allowed only 150 days for concessional demurrage, and any delay beyond that was not the fault of the second respondent but due to the first respondent's investigation delay.

Citing legal precedents, the court held that when valuable goods are unlawfully seized by Customs Authorities, resulting in loss to the owner, the authorities should bear the burden. Previous cases established that Customs Authorities were liable to refund warehousing and demurrage charges if they acted improperly. The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, stating that they were entitled to relief. The first respondent's argument that earlier notice could have avoided liability was rejected, as the delay was caused by the first respondent's investigation. The court ordered the first respondent to pay the amount paid towards demurrage charges and granted interest at 12% per annum. The rule Nisi was made absolute, granting the relief sought by the petitioner.