2024 (1) TMI 101 - HC - Customs

Seeking a direction to the second respondent to denotify the petitioner's Inland Container Depots with effect from 01.04.2023 - denotification sought on the ground that they are intending to lease out their property for some other purpose - HELD THAT - Admittedly, the Customs officials have been sanctioned to the petitioner Company only on additional charges and not on regular basis. However, the Department is claiming charges from the petitioner for the period during which the officials have not been deployed. Though the charges appeared to have been adjusted towards subsequent years, an opinion has also been sought for from the Legal Advisor and an opinion was given to the effect that for the period when the deployments have not been made, the Department is not supposed to collect the amount. This Court is of the view that the claim of the respondents in respect of Cost Recovery Charges for deployment of the additional Customs Officials to the petitioner's Input Containers Depots for the period during which the services of the Customs officials have not been utilised by the petitioner is not justified and on that ground, they are not supposed to deny the request of the petitioner to denotify their Inland Container Depots. Therefore, the respondents shall denotify the petitioner's Inland Container Depots within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this case are the denotification of the petitioner's Inland Container Depots and the payment of Cost Recovery Charges by the petitioner.

Denotification of Inland Container Depots:
The petitioner, an Inland Container Depot appointed under the Customs Act, sought denotification of their depots to lease out the property for another purpose. The respondents did not consider the petitioner's request submitted in February 2023. The respondents argued that the facility was not ripe for denotification due to uncleared goods and disputed payment of Cost Recovery Charges.

Payment of Cost Recovery Charges:
The respondents claimed Cost Recovery Charges from the petitioner for the deployment of Customs officials, even during periods when no officials were stationed at the depots. The petitioner disputed these charges, citing legal opinions that support their position. Circulars from the Ministry of Finance clarified the rules for Cost Recovery Charges, emphasizing charges should be demanded only for officials actually posted at the facility.

Judgment:
The Court examined the arguments and materials presented. It noted that the claim for Cost Recovery Charges during periods of non-deployment was not justified. The Court directed the respondents to denotify the petitioner's Inland Container Depots within two weeks but allowed them to pursue any legitimate Cost Recovery Charges after seeking clarification from the Directorate General of Human Resources & Development. The Writ Petition was disposed of with no costs awarded.