2024 (4) TMI 251 - HC - Customs

Seeking clearance of the goods - High Seas Sale agreement stands cancelled - default on the part of respondent No. 6 in making payments - It is contended that the petitioner has now stepped into the shoes of respondent No. 6 and has become entitled to seek amendment of the bill of entry and/ or to file a fresh bill of entry to clear the goods - HELD THAT - On a query made by us, Mr. Nankani has submitted that there are no transactions of the petitioner with respondent No. 6, except the present High Seas Sale which too stands cancelled. It is submitted that except for this contract, the petitioner has never dealt with respondent No. 6. Respondent No. 6 who is represented by Mr. Gohil, learned counsel states that respondent No. 6 has no objection whatsoever for the goods being cleared by the petitioner. Thus, in our opinion, considering the request which is made by the petitioner by its letter dated 15 December, 2023 addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Imports), JNCH, Nhava Sheva (supra), it is appropriate that the application of the petitioner for clearance of the goods either by permitting amendment of bill of entry or by filing of a fresh bill of entry as the law may permit, needs to be decided by the concerned designated officer. We accordingly permit the petitioner to place on record of the designated Customs Officer, a proper application raising all contentions as may be permissible in law which the petitioner state would be filed within two days from today. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The primary contention involves the petitioner seeking clearance of goods through a petition filed u/s Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the actions of Respondent No. 3 and seeking various reliefs including declaration of acting beyond jurisdiction, quashing of impugned letter, and issuance of writs for clearance and amendment of Bill of Entry.

Details of the Judgment:

1. The petitioner, as the original importer of goods, entered into a High Seas Sale Agreement with Respondent No. 6, which was later canceled due to payment default by Respondent No. 6, leading the petitioner to seek amendment or filing of a fresh Bill of Entry for clearance of goods.

2. The petitioner argued that any investigation into Respondent No. 6's antecedents should not affect the clearance of goods, emphasizing the losses being incurred due to the goods being held.

3. The goods in question are contained in 43 containers belonging to Respondent No. 8, Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A., with any inter se issues between the petitioner and Respondent No. 8 expressly kept open.

4. The petitioner submitted a letter requesting cancellation/amendment of the Bill of Entry and permission to file a fresh Bill of Entry in the name of the actual importer, supported by legal entitlement for clearance.

5. The Court considered the submissions of both parties, with Respondent No. 6 having no objection to the goods being cleared by the petitioner, and the respondents raising contentions primarily against Respondent No. 6.

6. The Court directed the petitioner to file a proper application with the designated Customs Officer within two days, raising all permissible contentions, for a decision on clearance after granting an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties, including Respondent No. 8.

7. A decision on the application is to be rendered within two weeks, keeping all contentions open, and the petition was disposed of with no costs, with parties instructed to act on an authenticated copy of the order.