9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (2) TMI 148 - HC - CustomsSeeking release of the imported goods seized by the Principal Commissioner of Customs Air Cargo Complex (Import) New Delhi without payment of demurrage charges in terms of Regulation 6 (1) (L) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations 2009 - grievance of the Petitioner is that despite repeated communications to the Department the imported goods were not released - HELD THAT - In the present case initially the Petitioner itself did not follow up with the customs for moving of the imported goods to the warehouse in terms of his own communication dated 07th November 2021. Thereafter even when liberty was granted by this Court on 04th September 2023 the Petitioner has chosen not to avail of the same. In fact an application was also moved by CELEBI - Respondent No. 3 for securing the payment of the demurrage charges despite this no step was taken. In addition the Petitioner has also not participated in the proceedings qua the show cause notice itself. Obviously when the order dated 31st January 2023 was passed the Petitioner would be aware that a show cause notice is likely to be issued by the Department which was in fact issued on 30th January 2023 though it is recorded to the contrary in the said order possibly due to lack of instructions. This Court is of the opinion that the Petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs as sought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Conclusion - i) The Petitioner is not entitled to the release of goods without demurrage charges due to their failure to take necessary actions under Section 49 of the Customs Act 1962. ii) The Customs Department s failure to issue a show cause notice within the stipulated period does not automatically absolve the Petitioner of liability for demurrage charges. Petition disposed off.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered in this judgment include:
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Release of Imported Goods Without Demurrage Charges The relevant legal framework includes Regulation 6(1)(L) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009, which addresses the conditions under which goods can be released without demurrage charges. The Court noted that despite the Petitioner's communication dated 7th November 2021, requesting the transfer of goods to a warehouse, the Petitioner did not follow up with any further steps or applications under Section 49 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Court emphasized that the Petitioner had not availed the opportunity to file an application under Section 49, even when given liberty to do so on 4th September 2023. Failure to Issue Show Cause Notice and Unconditional Release Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, mandates the issuance of a show cause notice within six months of the seizure of goods, with a possible extension. In this case, the extension period had also expired, leading to the Court's previous order on 31st January 2023, directing the unconditional release of the goods. However, the Court noted that the Petitioner did not seek release without demurrage charges in the earlier petition. Liability for Demurrage Charges The Court examined whether the Petitioner was liable for demurrage charges owed to CELEBI, the cargo terminal management company. The Petitioner's argument was that the Department's failure to transfer the goods to a warehouse as requested absolved them of liability for demurrage charges. However, the Court found that the Petitioner did not take necessary follow-up actions on their initial request and did not utilize the opportunity to file an application under Section 49 when granted. Petitioner's Actions and Follow-Up The Court analyzed the Petitioner's actions, noting that despite the initial communication and the liberty granted by the Court to file an application under Section 49, the Petitioner did not pursue these avenues. The Court also highlighted that the Petitioner did not participate in proceedings related to the show cause notice, which was issued on 30th January 2023, indicating a lack of engagement with the process. Treatment of Competing Arguments The Customs Department argued that the goods were prohibited and could not be shifted to a warehouse, and that the Petitioner had not approached under Section 49 despite being given the liberty to do so. CELEBI maintained that it was entitled to recover demurrage charges for storage. The Court found that the Petitioner had not demonstrated any special circumstances or peculiar facts that would warrant relief from demurrage charges, distinguishing the case from precedents cited by the Petitioner. Conclusions The Court concluded that the Petitioner was not entitled to the reliefs sought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India due to their failure to take necessary steps and follow up on their initial request. The Court disposed of the petition, allowing the Petitioner to approach the Department and CELEBI for the release of goods in accordance with the law. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court held that:
The Court's final determination was that the Petitioner could pursue the release of goods through appropriate legal channels, but the petition for relief from demurrage charges was dismissed.
|
