9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (1) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned shipping company registered under the Indian Companies Act. It is a multinational company having operations in the Indian sub continent, Middle East & South East Asia. Its core business is shipping especially transportation of containerized cargo. For the transportation of cargo the petitioner company uses company-owned as well as leased containers. In October, 2009, M/s ONS Maritime Pvt. Ltd.-an international freight forwarder located at Pratap Vihar, Ghaziabad-placed booking orders for forty numbers of 20'DV containers for the shipment of Oil Well Chemicals cargo. The orders were placed on behalf of Vission Mineral and Energy, 301, III Floor, Street No.3 Gaffar Manzil, Jamia Nagar, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. The petitioner company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sp; The petitioner is permitted to serve the notice on respondent No. 2 outside the Court and file an affidavit of service within a week. Office to hand over Dasti notices within three days. The notice will indicate that the writ petition will be taken up as a fresh case on 20th December 2011. The respondent No. 2 shall instruct its counsel as to why the containers are not being released after unloading the goods therein in terms of the order issued by the respondent No. 1." Sri Arun Kumar Shukla has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no.2 and has also filed a counter affidavit today, which is taken on record. We have heard Ms.Rasmitha R.Chandran, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Arun Kumar Shu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be released to the concerned shipping line. This letter has been filed along with counter affidavit as Annexure CA-7 by the respondent no.2. From the said letter it is absolutely clear that Office of the Additional Commissioner,(Customs) respondent no.1 wants that container should be released to the Shipping Line. However, the containers are not being released as the seized goods are not being kept in safe custody by the respondent no.2. If the respondent no.2 has expressed his inability to keep seized goods in a safe custody, it is the responsibility of respondent no.1 to keep the seized goods at suitable place. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the respondent no.1 should take appropriate steps for k ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
