2022 (5) TMI 149 - HC - Customs

Seeking waiver/refund of charges like container detention charges, demurrage charges, ground rent charges etc - clearance of goods imported by the petitioner - case of petitioner is that despite the final assessment of the goods and payment of the assessed customs duties, the goods imported by the writ applicant were not cleared - HELD THAT - Having regard to the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of JINDAL DRUGS LTD. ANR. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA ORS. 2018 (8) TMI 49 - SUPREME COURT and also that of the Delhi High Court in the case of M/S. GLOBAL IMPEX THROUGH ITS PARTNER, SHREE SHYAM ENTERPRISES, SURENDER KUMAR JAIN THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR, BISHT INTERNATIONAL THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR, ROOP SINGH ENTERPRISES THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR, VERSUS MANAGER, CELEBI IMPORT SHED AND ANR., UNION OF INDIA ORS. 2019 (12) TMI 957 - DELHI HIGH COURT , where it was held that demurrage, to CELEBI, would be payable by the petitioners-importers in these writ petitions, and not by the Customs authorities. Thus, no liability to be fastened on the respondent - application dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Clearance of imported goods under Bill of Entry without bank guarantee.
2. Quashing of a letter issued to the petitioner.
3. Waiver/refund of charges incurred for imported goods.
4. Delay in clearance of goods and incurring additional charges.
5. Verification of the certificate of origin by authorities.
6. Justification of actions by the Customs Department.
7. Liability for detention/demurrage charges and ground rent.
8. Entitlement of relief as prayed for in the writ application.

Analysis:
1. The writ applicant sought relief for clearance of imported goods without a bank guarantee. The Bill of Entry was filed on 24th August 2021, along with a certificate of origin from the Sri Lankan Government. Despite payment of assessed customs duties, the goods were not cleared, citing doubts about the certificate of origin. After verification, the goods were permitted to be cleared on 24th November 2021. The applicant requested a mandamus for clearance without bank guarantee, which was rejected based on Customs rules.

2. The petitioner sought to quash a letter issued on 14th October 2021, requesting a bank guarantee for provisional assessment. The respondent justified the request based on Customs rules for verification of the certificate of origin. The High Court rejected the plea to quash the letter, citing adherence to legal provisions.

3. The petitioner requested a writ for waiver/refund of charges incurred due to delayed clearance. The delay was attributed to verification of the certificate of origin. The respondent opposed the plea, emphasizing the lawful intent behind the delay. The High Court dismissed the request for waiver/refund, considering the actions as legitimate.

4. The petitioner inquired about the delay in clearance, incurring detention/demurrage charges and ground rent. The delay was due to verification procedures, leading to additional charges. The petitioner sought direction for refund/waiver of these charges, holding the Customs Department responsible. The respondent defended the actions as necessary to protect government revenue. The High Court rejected the plea for refund, stating the actions were not unjustified.

5. Verification of the certificate of origin was crucial in the delay of goods clearance. The Sri Lankan authorities confirmed the certificate's authenticity after multiple communications. The delay was attributed to the verification process, as per Customs rules. The High Court upheld the verification process, leading to eventual clearance of goods.

6. The Customs Department's actions were scrutinized for their legality. The respondent defended the delay in clearance as lawful and necessary for revenue protection. The High Court upheld the Customs Department's actions as per legal provisions, dismissing claims of unjustified detention.

7. The liability for detention/demurrage charges and ground rent was contested. The petitioner sought relief from the charges due to Customs Department's actions causing the delay. The respondent argued against attributing mala fide intent to the delay, emphasizing the lawful verification process. The High Court rejected the plea for refund, considering the delay as legitimate.

8. The writ applicant's entitlement to relief as prayed for in the application was the central question. Referring to precedents and legal provisions, the High Court concluded that no liability could be fastened upon the respondent for the delay in clearance. The writ application was rejected based on legal grounds and established principles.

This comprehensive analysis covers the issues raised in the legal judgment, detailing the arguments presented by both parties and the High Court's reasoning leading to the final decision.