2018 (9) TMI 517 - HC - Customs

Release of detained goods - goods were imported without paying the demurrage and container detention charges - Held that - It is not clear as to why on every occasion the Court has to direct the 4th respondent to comply with the orders passed by the department. If the respondents 3 and 4 are flouting the orders passed by the department, then, it is for the department to initiate action to cancel the licence/permission granted to them. The respondents 3 and 4 have been granted licence under the relevant regulations and if they do not comply with the direction issued by the department, necessary action should be initiated against them - the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents 3 and 4 to forthwith release the imported cargo without insisting upon the payment of demurrage charges and detention charges till the date of release.

Summary

Issues:
1. Petition for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to release imported goods without payment of demurrage and detention charges.
2. Non-compliance by respondents 3 and 4 with the waiver certificates granted by the department.
3. Previous non-compliance history of the 4th respondent.
4. Need for departmental action against respondents 3 and 4 for flouting orders.
5. Disposal of the writ petition with directions to release cargo and initiate action against respondents 3 and 4.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus to direct the release of imported goods without paying demurrage and detention charges as per relevant regulations. The department had issued Waiver Certificates for the charges, but respondents 3 and 4 did not comply, leading to the court intervention.

2. The 4th respondent, involved in a previous case, had a history of non-compliance with departmental orders, necessitating court directions for compliance. The court highlighted the need for the department to take action against respondents 3 and 4 for their disobedience instead of repeated court interventions.

3. Emphasizing the seriousness of non-compliance, the court directed respondents 3 and 4 to release the cargo without charges as per the waiver certificates. Simultaneously, respondents 1 and 2 were instructed to initiate appropriate regulatory action against respondents 3 and 4 for their failure to adhere to departmental directions, stressing the importance of following official orders.

4. The judgment underscored the significance of upholding departmental directives and the need for respondents to comply without court intervention. By issuing specific directions for cargo release and regulatory action, the court aimed to ensure the enforcement of regulations and discourage non-compliance by the concerned parties.