2021 (8) TMI 1420 - HC - Indian Laws

Detention of goods - reliance placed on Handing of Cargo on Customs Area s Regulations, 2009 - whether the first respondent has raised any claim on account of detention or the like? - HELD THAT - It is recorded that the matter has been taken up on the appellant s submission that the appellant has no claim against the second respondent and the order that the appellant seeks will not prejudice the second respondent. In view of the fact that the first respondent has already made a claim on account of container detention charges or the delay that was occasioned to the first respondent as a result of the goods being detained, the first respondent cannot be called upon to release the goods without its demand being met or an adjudication that the demand may not be tenable. The appellant is not entitled to any relief at this stage - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Detention of goods by customs authorities
2. Applicability of Handing of Cargo on Customs Area's Regulations, 2009
3. Claim raised by the first respondent for detention charges
4. Adjudication on the appellant's relief

Analysis:
The judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice addresses the appeal concerning the detention of goods by customs authorities and subsequent provisional release. The appellant sought relief based on the Handing of Cargo on Customs Area's Regulations, 2009, claiming waiver of rent and demurrage for the period of detention. However, the court differentiated between waivers applicable to customs or port authorities and private parties, ruling that the waiver under the regulations does not extend to private party containers detained without compensation.

Regarding the claim raised by the first respondent for detention charges, the court noted a discrepancy between the value of the imported goods and the amount claimed. Despite the first respondent not being represented, the appellant's submission clarified that the relief sought would not prejudice the second respondent. The court highlighted that the first respondent's claim for container detention charges must be addressed before the goods can be released without meeting the demand or adjudication on its tenability.

Consequently, the court concluded that the appellant was not entitled to relief at that stage, leading to the dismissal of O.S.A.(CAD) No. 45 of 2021 without any order as to costs. The judgment emphasized the importance of addressing the first respondent's claim for detention charges before releasing the goods, highlighting the need for adjudication and meeting the demand to proceed with the release.