9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1254X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uction does not arise. Even after paying the customs duty, the petitioner should have been more vigil and strenuous in clearing the goods. - Court does not find that the action of the auctioning the goods of the petitioner suffers from any infirmity. - action of the auctioning the goods of the petitioner suffers from any infirmity - Decided against Assessee. - WP. No. 35585 of 2002 - - - Dated:- 24-11-2015 - R. Mahadevan, J. For the Appellant : Mr. B Satish Sundar For the Respondent : Mr. M Devendran-SC-R1 Mr. S R Sundaram-R2 ORDER This Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the Respondent to pay the Petitioner the market value of the goods imported vide Bill of Entry 378482 dated 2.2.2002, namely, 12 packages of Halogen Lamps, weighing 125 Kgs, along with duty amount paid with interest at 15% p.a. 2. The case of the Petitioner is as follows:- a. The Petitioner Firm is a registered importer and exporter of various goods, under the DGFT, Ministry of Commerce, Government of India. The Petitioner entered into a contract with M/s.United Trading Corporation, Honk Kong for the supply of 6000 pieces of halogen lamps in 12 cartons of Chin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled a counter affidavit, wherein it is averred as follows:- a. The goods arrived at Chennai Airport on 23.1.2002 and not on 2.2.2002 and the Petitioner himself admitted that delivery order was misplaced, which caused delay in processing the clearance of the goods, for which the Respondents are not responsible. With reference to the letter dated 23.5.2002, regarding waiver of demurrage, the same could not be acceded to, as there is no provision in the waiver policy, which was communicated by letter dated 14.6.2002 and further advised the Petitioner to clear the goods to avoid accrual of demurrage. Since the Petitioner did not clear the goods, with the permission of the 1st Respondent, the goods were auctioned and hence, the 2nd Respondent cannot be held responsible for the loss as alleged by the Petitioner. The 2nd Respondent sent a reply dated 19.7.2002, stating that the delay was caused by the Petitioner only. As per the provisions of the Customs Act, if the goods are not cleared within 30 days of arrival, the same are liable for auction. The goods in question were not cleared even after lapse of 155 days of its arrival and the said delay was not properly explained. b. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Petitioner, the Respondents cannot be held responsible and there is no provision in the waiver policy and that as per the provisions of the Customs Act, if the goods are not cleared within 30 days of arrival, the same are liable for auction and that since goods in question were not cleared even after lapse of 155 days of its arrival, the same were auctioned and the public notice dated 16.2.2002 itself can be construed as the final notice under Section 48 of the Customs Act and therefore, the Petitioner cannot contend that there was no notice served upon him before auctioning of the goods and prayed for dismissal of this Writ Petition. 7. I have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the materials available on record. 8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had imported 6000 pieces of halogen lamps from Shanghai to Chennai and the goods were arrived at Chennai Airport on 2.2.2002. Since there was a delay in clearing the goods and the petitioner was seeking the waiver of demurrage charges, which was declined by the Airports Authority of India, the goods could not be cleared, even after the lapse of 155 days, though the cuosoms duty was paid by the petitioner and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustoms Authority on 23.5.2002. 13. Now, the main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that without notice to the petitioner, the goods ought not to have been auctioned by the respondents. 14. Refuting the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has contended that in the letter, dated 24.6.2002 addressed by the agent of the petitioner to the second respondent, it is stated that they have received the letter from the customs pending cargo section for the disposal of the consignment and therefore, when the petitioner was intimated that if the goods are not cleared as early as possible, they would be disposed off by the second respondent and the agent of the petitioner was also knowing very well that the goods would be disposed of, if the same were not cleared and therefore, that letter itself was the notice intimating the disposal of the goods, if the same were not cleared as quickly as possible and hence,, the question of non-issuance of notice does not arise. 15. The letter, dated 24.6.2002 addressed by the agent of the petitioner to the second respondent reads as under:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce) by the AAI does not confer any right on the consignee to seek any legal remedy. Dy. General Manager (Cargo). 18. Further, a copy of the above said public notice was affixed on the Notice Board in the Cargo Terminal, Chennai. 19. No doubt, it is not the case of the petitioner that the goods were landed only after 31.3.2002. 20. Either the petitioner or atleast the agent of the petitioner should have come to know about the above said public notice and on seeing the above said public notice, steps should have been taken to clear the goods, or some steps should have been taken legally as stated in the notice, but nothing has been done. 21. Further, it is clear from the above said notice that any kind of communication or reply, addressed before or after the notice, does not confer any right on the consignee to seek any legal remedy. Therefore, it is more clear that either the goods should have been cleared soon after the publication of the notice or some steps should have been taken legally by the petitioner. 22. Under these circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the provisions of Sections 150 and 153 of the Customs Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
