2023 (1) TMI 699 - HC - Customs

Seeking release of imported consignment - payment of demurrage detention and any other charges - It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the consignment comprising of Knotted Woollen Carpets was imported by the petitioners from the United States of America on 10.08.2021 - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that the seizure order now stands passed on 09.02.2022. As pointed out by the parties the request for provisional release of the consignment was also considered and an order dated 20.09.2022 has already been passed thereby provisionally releasing the consignment. Whether the goods are required to be confiscated pursuant to the order of seizure or any other action required to be taken will be decided on adjudication of the Show Cause Notice. Seeking direction against the respondent to either pay or waive the payment of demurrage during the time the goods were put on hold - HELD THAT - The respondent relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon ble Apex Court in MUMBAI PORT TRUST VERSUS M/S. SHRI LAKSHMI STEELS AND ORS. ETC. 2017 (7) TMI 977 - SUPREME COURT which in somewhat similar circumstances held that the High Court could not in writ proceedings have directed DRI/Customs to pay the detention charges to the shipping line since these were to be paid on the basis of a contract between the respondent importers and the shipping line. In the present case also prima facie the petitioner has not responded to the various letters and summons issued by the respondent. Therefore it cannot be said on the basis of the record available in the present proceedings that the respondents were solely responsible for the delay caused. Therefore no orders can be passed directing the concerned respondent to pay the demurrage charges as prayed. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Relief sought for release of imported consignments.
2. Allegation of goods being put on hold without proper order under Customs Act.
3. Claim of delay due to non-cooperation of petitioner.
4. Consideration of demurrage charges during the hold period.

Issue 1: Relief sought for release of imported consignments
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking the release of two consignments of "Knotted Woollen Carpets" imported from the United States. The consignments were held by customs authorities without being released despite submission of all necessary import documents.

Issue 2: Allegation of goods being put on hold without proper order under Customs Act
The petitioner argued that the goods were put on hold based on oral instructions from the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) without a proper order under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner contended that the hold was unjustified and requested provisional release of the goods.

Issue 3: Claim of delay due to non-cooperation of petitioner
The respondent authorities claimed that a detailed investigation revealed mis-declared goods imported in the name of a non-existing entity, violating trade regulations. They argued that the delay in passing seizure orders and issuing Show Cause Notice was due to the petitioner's non-cooperation, leading to the extension of time limits for legal procedures.

Issue 4: Consideration of demurrage charges during the hold period
The petitioner sought direction to waive or pay demurrage charges for the period the goods were held. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the respondents argued that delays were also caused by the petitioner's actions, justifying the refusal to pay demurrage charges. The court found the petitioner's lack of response to letters and summons as contributing to the delays, leading to the dismissal of the request for payment of demurrage charges.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the petition, provisionally releasing the consignment while reserving the decision on confiscation pending adjudication. The court rejected the plea for payment or waiver of demurrage charges, citing the petitioner's lack of cooperation in the process.