2019 (2) TMI 1260 - HC - Customs

Release of confiscated goods subsequently warehoused - the petitioner had paid the redemption fine as also demurrage charges to CONCOR - now the goods do not exist - Held that - It is evident that when imported, there was doubt as to whether the goods answering to the description in the bills of entry could be permitted to be re-exported. It is not disputed that after 100% inspection which was made after detention of the goods, the customs authorities made the order on 8-6-2017. The order, in fact, imposed redemption fine which was apparently satisfied. The petitioner also paid demurrage charges to the CONCOR - there is no doubt that the petitioner s grievance, in one sense, is justified. There is no doubt that the petitioner s grievance, in one sense, is justified. However, as to the appropriateness of the remedy it seeks, the production of goods or their equivalent or some kind of compensation, this Court is of the opinion that the nature of dispute is such that it cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings - The Court is of the opinion that the present petition seeking relief of release of goods which are no longer in existence cannot be granted - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Release of confiscated goods subject to payment of redemption fine and warehousing; Absence of goods leading to re-export commitments not being fulfilled; Appropriateness of remedy sought; Liability of respondents for compensation or damages; Adjudication of dispute in writ proceedings vs. civil proceedings.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought the release of goods confiscated by customs authorities subject to payment of redemption fine and warehoused with the second respondent, Container Corporation of India Ltd. (CONCOR). The Court appointed a Local Commissioner who confirmed the absence of goods at the site, with CONCOR indicating that the goods were sent for upward storage to a third respondent after warehousing. An FIR was lodged, and investigations were ongoing.

The absence of goods resulted in the petitioner being unable to fulfill re-export commitments, leading to a request for appropriate orders from the Court. It was noted that doubts existed regarding the goods matching the description in the bills of entry, with the customs authorities ordering redemption fine payment after 100% inspection and detention of goods. The petitioner also paid demurrage charges to CONCOR.

While acknowledging the petitioner's justified grievance, the Court deemed the dispute unsuitable for adjudication in writ proceedings. The nature of the dispute, liability of respondents, extent of liability, and appropriate compensation or damages were considered matters for civil proceedings. Since the petitioner's goods were acquired after checks, valuation, and payment of duty, the Court held that the petitioner had no disability in proving certain facts.

Consequently, the Court concluded that the petition seeking the release of non-existent goods could not be granted. The petitioner was advised to seek remedies in civil proceedings if desired, with all rights and contentions of the parties reserved. The petition was disposed of accordingly.