2005 (9) TMI 106 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Release and delivery of Synthetic Yarn Waste consignments.
2. Payment of warehouse charges.
3. Refund of Customs Duty on undelivered goods.
4. Compensation for the market value of short-delivered goods.
5. Jurisdiction of writ petition to claim compensation for pilfered goods.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Release and Delivery of Synthetic Yarn Waste Consignments:
The petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing respondent no. 3 to release and deliver two consignments of Synthetic Yarn Waste. Initially, the court ordered the release of goods upon the petitioner executing a bond to pay any amount directed by the Central Government. The goods were partially delivered, and the petitioner contended that the duty liability for undelivered goods was illegal and demanded a refund.

2. Payment of Warehouse Charges:
Respondents 1 and 2 were directed to pay warehouse charges to respondent no. 3. The Central Government's order dated 23rd December 1996 and subsequent communications indicated that the Customs would pay Rs. 5,58,977/- to the Central Warehousing Corporation (CWC). However, the dispute over the payment of warehousing charges persisted, leading to further litigation.

3. Refund of Customs Duty on Undelivered Goods:
The petitioner sought a refund of Customs Duty for the undelivered goods, arguing that the duty liability was illegal. The court directed the Customs authorities to reconsider the refund application under Section 23(1) of the Customs Act, which provides for remission of duty on lost or destroyed goods. Eventually, the refund claim was granted on 12th September 1997.

4. Compensation for the Market Value of Short-Delivered Goods:
The petitioner amended the writ petition to seek compensation for the market value of 33,465 kgs of short-delivered goods. The petitioner argued that the goods were lost while in the custody of CWC, and thus, the respondents should compensate for the market value or CIF value of the pilfered goods. The petitioner relied on Sections 160 and 161 of the Contract Act and Supreme Court decisions in Northern Plastics Ltd. v. Collector of Customs and Central Excise and Shilps Impex v. Union of India.

5. Jurisdiction of Writ Petition to Claim Compensation for Pilfered Goods:
The respondents contended that the writ jurisdiction was not appropriate for resolving the factual disputes involved in the compensation claim. They argued that the claim for the market value of pilfered goods should be pursued through a civil suit or arbitration. The court agreed, noting that several factual aspects, including the authority of the Custom House Agent's representative and the condition of the goods, needed to be examined through evidence, which was beyond the scope of writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion:
The court declined to entertain the petitioner's claim for compensation for the pilfered goods in writ jurisdiction, emphasizing that such claims should be adjudicated through appropriate civil or arbitration proceedings. The unamended petition had already been addressed through previous orders, and no further relief was granted. The petition was disposed of, leaving other remedies open to the petitioner for claiming compensation.