2020 (2) TMI 771 - HC - Customs

Direction to clear the consignment Yellow Peas/Green Peas - restriction on import of Yellow Peas - HELD THAT - Clandestinely, the petitioner without mentioning anything about the dismissal of W.P.Nos.11677 and 11681 of 2019 on 16.04.2019 filed this writ petition before the Madurai Bench of this Court during May 2019 - It is to be stated that if the petitioner is aggrieved over the action/inaction of the respondents, they could have very well filed appropriate petition before this Court. But the petitioner, having invited an dismissal order on 16.04.2019 superseding the earlier order dated 18.03.2019, has chosen to file the instant writ petition suppressing the dismissal of the earlier writ petition for the very same relief. Hence, now they cannot blame the respondents that they have not cleared the consignment or disobeyed the orders of this Court. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Petitioner seeking direction to clear consignment of "Yellow Peas/Green Peas" under two bill of entries and issuance of a "Detention Certificate."
2. Dispute over clearance of imported goods due to a notification restricting import of Yellow Peas.
3. Refusal by respondents to release goods leading to multiple writ petitions by the petitioner.
4. Respondents' counterclaim against petitioner's allegations.
5. Judicial orders directing release of consignments and waiver of demurrage charges.
6. Petitioner's subsequent representation seeking release of remaining consignments.
7. Dismissal of writ petitions by the court and petitioner's subsequent filing of a new writ petition.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, engaged in import and sale of pulses, challenged a notification restricting Yellow Peas import, leading to a series of petitions seeking clearance of consignments. The court granted interim stay but respondents failed to comply, prompting further legal action.
2. Despite court orders directing release of goods and waiver of demurrage charges, the petitioner faced delays in clearing all consignments, leading to subsequent writ petitions seeking relief.
3. The court dismissed later writ petitions due to the absence of the earlier interim stay order, highlighting the petitioner's failure to disclose prior dismissal and filing a new petition in a different court, leading to the current judgment.
4. The court emphasized that the petitioner's actions superseding previous orders barred them from blaming respondents for non-compliance, leading to the dismissal of the current writ petition.
5. The judgment concluded by allowing the petitioner to pursue appropriate legal action if advised, with no costs imposed, effectively closing the case and the connected miscellaneous petition.