2021 (7) TMI 1150 - HC - Customs

Seeking release and return of detained containers - entitlement of compensation towards the container idling charges - in spite of petitioner's request, the respondents have not taken any steps to release the containers as specified - HELD THAT - This Court is of the considered opinion that imports and exports are to be done by following the procedures contemplated and by complying with the mandatory requirements. The relief as such sought for in the present writ petition to direct the respondents to forthwith release and return the containers, itself is absurd. Such a relief requires adjudication in view of the fact that there are statutory requirements and compliance of the terms and conditions with the Customs Cargo Service Provider and other aspects of the matter. Without adjudicating all those factors, the High Court cannot issue a writ granting the relief in the writ petition filed. When disputed facts are raised between the parties, the same cannot be entertained and the High Court cannot conduct a roving enquiry with reference to the dispute, which is to be resolved with reference to the documents and evidence produced before the competent authorities. The relief as such sought for in the present writ petition cannot be granted and the petitioner is at liberty to approach the competent authority of the respondents or before the competent forum for the purpose of adjudication of disputes and redressal of grievances - Petition disposed off. W.P.No.33118 of 2018 Seeking to declare the conduct of the respondent detaining the petitioner's containers, as illegal - HELD THAT - The petitioner has to comply with the statutory requirements, including the payment of charges to be paid as per the terms and conditions of the contract or under the Statute. However, for grant of any such declaration as sought for, elaborate adjudication is required. The High Court cannot entertain any such adjudication which is to be done with reference to the documents and evidence, and therefore, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the competent authorities for adjudication of issues or before the competent forum in the manner known to law - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Detention of containers by respondents.
2. Maintainability of writ petition.
3. Adjudication of disputes and relief sought.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Detention of containers by respondents
The petitioner, a company acting as an agent for a Korean container owner and carrier, filed a writ petition seeking the release of containers detained by the respondents. The petitioner alleged that the containers were illegally detained and requested their immediate release. The respondents, represented by the Customs Cargo Service Provider, argued that the writ petition was not maintainable as specific procedures and documentation were required for the release of imported containers. They contended that any disputes should be resolved through civil proceedings and not through a writ petition. The court emphasized the need to follow statutory procedures for imports and exports, stating that the relief sought in the writ petition was premature without proper adjudication of the legal and contractual obligations between the parties. It was ruled that the High Court could not grant the relief sought without a detailed examination of the relevant documents and evidence.

Issue 2: Maintainability of writ petition
The court held that the petitioner must comply with statutory requirements and contractual obligations, including payment of charges, before seeking legal remedies. It was reiterated that disputes of a civil nature, such as the detention of containers, should be resolved through appropriate forums and not through writ petitions. The court emphasized that detailed adjudication based on evidence and documents was necessary for granting any declaration or relief sought by the petitioner. Therefore, the court disposed of the writ petition, advising the petitioner to approach the competent authorities or forums for the resolution of disputes in accordance with the law.

Conclusion:
The High Court, in its judgment, emphasized the importance of following proper procedures and fulfilling contractual obligations in cases involving the detention of imported containers. It ruled that disputes of a civil nature should be resolved through appropriate legal channels and not through writ petitions. The court highlighted the need for detailed adjudication based on evidence and documentation before granting any relief sought by the petitioner. Consequently, both writ petitions were disposed of, with the petitioner advised to seek redressal through the competent authorities or forums as per legal requirements.