9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (8) TMI 657 - HC - CustomsMaintainability of petition - Settlement of total dues of entire shipment - While the petitioner is aggrieved against non issuance of the delivery order for the 1x40' container, the third respondent is aggrieved against the non payment of the detention charges and non return of the 2x20' containers - HELD THAT - The third respondent disputes that they are not a CCSP, but are freight forwarders and delivery agents. The Bill of lading dated 02.03.2020 pertaining to the 1x40' container, identifies the third respondent as an agent for the carrier. As per the definition in the aforesaid Regulations, any person responsible for receipt, storage, delivery, dispatch or otherwise handling of imported and exported goods would fall within the purview of the definition of a CCSP. Merely because the petitioner has not sought for an approval from the authorities to be recognized as a CCSP, it cannot be said that the provisions of Handling of Cargo and Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 will not be applicable to them, since the Regulations would be applicable to any person who fulfills the ingredients of the definition clause of a CCSP. If that be so, Regulation 5(5) mandates such a person to comply with the provisions and abide by all the provisions of the Act including the rules, regulations, notifications and orders issued therein. Thus, a combined reading of the Regulation 2(b) and 5(5) along with Regulation 6(1)(l) would qualify the third respondent to be a CCSP. In similar situations, when statutory regulations came to be violated by a CCSP and the maintainability of a Writ Petition against the CCSP was questioned before this Court in Balaji Dekors' case 2017 (8) TMI 686 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , this Court has held that the matter involved is not contractual but involves the implementation of the statutory regulation and therefore, the Writ Petition would be maintainable. Whether the third respondent is justified in withholding the delivery order for the 1x40' container, by insisting for clearance of the dispute against the 2x20' containers? - HELD THAT - The cause of action for the present writ petition arose when the petitioner had paid the delivery charges for the 1x40' container and the third respondent herein had insisted for payment of the detention charges and return of 2x20' containers covered under different bills of lading, as a pre condition for the issuance of a delivery order. Insofar as the outstanding due for the 1x40' container is concerned, both the parties admit that a sum of ₹ 8,61,358.30/- is outstanding. In A.K.Gupta Sons Vs. Damodar Valley Corporation 1965 (9) TMI 68 - SUPREME COURT , the Hon ble Apex Court had held that the expression cause of action does not mean every fact which is material to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to succeed, but only a new claim made on a new basis, constituted by new facts. In only a new claim made on a new basis, constituted by new facts. Thus, when the third respondent herein had not disputed the receipt of the delivery charges and when it is mutually admitted that the outstanding dues for the 1x40' container is ₹ 8,61,358.30/-, there is no justification on the part of the third respondent to combine the cause of actions of the 2x20' containers with that of the 1x40' container and thereby refrained from issuing the delivery order for the 1x40' container. Waiver of the detention charges for the 1x40' container during the Covid19 lock down period - HELD THAT - If the petitioner is granted liberty to settle the entire outstanding dues for the 1x40' container to the third respondent and thereby direct the third respondent to release the delivery order, the ends of justice could be secured. It is needless to point out that it is always open to the third respondent to ventilate their grievances in accordance with law, for any claim that may be due in connection with 2x20' containers. A Writ of Mandamus is hereby issued, directing the third respondent to release/handover the delivery order vide Bill of Lading No.ACL/JEA/MAA-766/20, dated 02.03.2020 for the 1x40' container on receiving a sum of ₹ 8,61,358.30/- from the petitioner and consequently deliver the goods pertaining to this Bill of lading to the consequently deliver the goods pertaining to this Bill of lading to the petitioner - Petition allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition. 2. Definition and applicability of "Customs Cargo Service Provider" (CCSP). 3. Justification for withholding the delivery order for the 1x40' container. 4. Waiver of detention charges during the COVID-19 lockdown period. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition: The third respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the Writ Petition, arguing that the dispute is contractual and not amenable to writ jurisdiction. The third respondent contended that they are merely freight forwarders and delivery agents, not a "Customs Cargo Service Provider" (CCSP) under the Handling of Cargo and Customs Areas Regulations, 2009. The court, however, referred to precedents such as M/S. P.Perichi Gounder Memorial Vs. The Commissioner of Customs and M Balaji Dekors Vs. The Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, which established that disputes involving statutory regulations can be addressed through a Writ Petition. The court concluded that the Writ Petition is maintainable as it involves the implementation of statutory regulations. 2. Definition and Applicability of "Customs Cargo Service Provider" (CCSP): The court examined Regulation 2(1)(b) of the Handling of Cargo and Customs Areas Regulations, 2009, which defines a CCSP as "any person responsible for receipt, storage, delivery, dispatch or otherwise handling of imported goods and export goods." The third respondent, identified as an agent for the carrier in the Bill of Lading, falls within this definition. The court noted that even without formal recognition as a CCSP, the third respondent is bound by the regulations if they fulfill the criteria. The court cited the Perichi Gounder Memorial case, which held that both CFS and Steamer Agents qualify as CCSPs and must implement the orders of the Customs Department. 3. Justification for Withholding the Delivery Order for the 1x40' Container: The petitioner argued that the third respondent unjustifiably withheld the delivery order for the 1x40' container despite the payment of delivery charges. The third respondent insisted on the payment of detention charges and the return of 2x20' containers as a precondition. The court referred to the principles laid down in A.K.Gupta & Sons Vs. Damodar Valley Corporation and Sidramappa Vs. Rajashetty, which state that distinct causes of action should not be combined. The court concluded that the third respondent's refusal to issue the delivery order for the 1x40' container based on the dispute over the 2x20' containers was unjustified. 4. Waiver of Detention Charges During the COVID-19 Lockdown Period: The petitioner contended that the government advisories mandated a waiver of detention charges during the COVID-19 lockdown period. The third respondent claimed to have granted this waiver for the 1x40' container, which was not disputed by the petitioner. The court directed the third respondent to release the delivery order for the 1x40' container upon receipt of the outstanding dues of ?8,61,358.30/-. The court also noted that the third respondent could pursue their claims related to the 2x20' containers through appropriate legal channels. Conclusion: The court issued a Writ of Mandamus directing the third respondent to release the delivery order for the 1x40' container upon payment of ?8,61,358.30/- by the petitioner. The Writ Petition was allowed, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed without costs.
|
