2021 (7) TMI 419 - HC - Customs

Seeking direction to respondents to cause release of the goods imported without payment of demurrage and container detention charges - Regulation 6(1) (I) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations 2009 - contentions of the petitioners are that once the Statutory provisions contemplate that the goods belong to the Customs Department are confiscation and the Service Provider is not entitled to collect any charges, then they are bound to release the goods and refund the deposit, if any collected - HELD THAT - This Court is of the considered opinion that absolutely there is no quarrel with reference to the legal propositions propounded by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which is well founded. Once the imported goods are confiscated by the Customs authorities, they became in possession of the goods and therefore, the Service Provider shall not levy any charges for the said confiscated goods. If at all any deposits are collected in this regard, the said deposits are to be refunded. In the present case, even the goods are not released and the Service Provider is claiming charges, which is in violation of the Detention certificate issued by the Customs authorities. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the writ petition - This Court is of the considered opinion that a thin distinction is to be drawn in between the Detention certificate as well as the release granted by various Courts with reference to the Detention certificate issued by the Customs Department. The in-between agreements, contracts, and disputes are relevant for the purpose of granting the relief and such disputes between the Service Provider and an importer or exporter, cannot be adjudicated in a writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court formed an opinion that the Detention certificate is nothing but affirmation of the statutory provisions contemplated, more specifically, with reference to Regulation 6(1)(l) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009. Thus, such a certificate undoubtedly provides a right to the holder of the certificate to claim the relief of release of imported goods by the Service Provider or refund as the case may be. In the present case, admittedly, the goods are being maintained by the Service providers. On confiscation, the Customs authorities take possession. However, the goods are still under the custody of the Service Provider. The goods are not taken away from the premises of the Service Provider. Therefore, the grievances of the service provider are also to be looked into and considered, while granting the relief of release of the imported goods or refund of the deposits, if any. This Court is of the considered opinion that in between disputes, more specifically, with the Service Provider and the importer or exporter has not been considered in any of the judgments produced by the petitioners. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the Detention certificate issued under the provisions of the Customs Act is reiteration of the legal position, which is binding on the Service Provider. Petition dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Release of imported goods without payment of demurrage and container detention charges.
2. Enforceability of the Detention Certificate issued under Regulation 6(1)(l) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009.
3. Contractual obligations and disputes between the Customs Cargo Service Provider and the importer.
4. Applicability of judgments from other High Courts and their relevance to the present case.
5. Adjudication of disputes and the role of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Release of Imported Goods without Payment of Demurrage and Container Detention Charges:
The petitioner sought a direction for the release of goods imported vide Bill of Entry No.5103334 dated 07.02.2018 without payment of demurrage and container detention charges, citing Regulation 6(1)(l) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009. The petitioner argued that the Detention Certificate issued by the Customs authorities should be honored, and the goods should be released without any further claims.

2. Enforceability of the Detention Certificate:
The petitioner contended that the Detention Certificate has statutory sanction and must be implemented in its letter and spirit. The petitioner relied on various judgments, including those from the Bombay High Court and Madras High Court, which emphasized the binding nature of such certificates on the Customs Cargo Service Provider. However, the court noted that the Detention Certificate should be seen as an eligibility certificate for claiming benefits under Regulation 6(1)(l) and does not automatically confer a right to refund or release without adjudication of disputes.

3. Contractual Obligations and Disputes:
The respondents argued that there were existing disputes between the Customs Cargo Service Provider and the petitioner, which needed to be resolved. The court highlighted that the Detention Certificate does not override the contractual obligations and disputes between the parties. The court emphasized that such disputes should be adjudicated by the appropriate forum and cannot be resolved merely through a writ petition.

4. Applicability of Judgments from Other High Courts:
The petitioner relied on judgments from the Bombay High Court and Madras High Court to support their claims. However, the court noted that the facts and circumstances of those cases were different, and the judgments could not be directly applied to the present case. The court also pointed out that the Sea Cargo Manifest and Transhipment Regulations, 2018, cited in the Bombay High Court judgment, came into force after the events in the present case and thus were not applicable.

5. Adjudication of Disputes and Writ Jurisdiction:
The court stressed that the Detention Certificate is an eligibility certificate that confirms the eligibility of an importer to claim benefits under Regulation 6(1)(l). However, the certificate alone does not confer a right to claim refund or release without resolving disputes through proper adjudication. The court held that such disputes should be resolved by the appropriate forum, and the High Court cannot conduct a roving inquiry into disputed facts in a writ proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the Detention Certificate is binding but does not alone provide a right to claim refund or release of goods without adjudication of disputes between the Service Provider and the importer. The court emphasized the need for proper adjudication of disputes through the appropriate forum to ensure justice for all parties involved.

← Previous Next →