9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 311X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r had declared to the first respondent that they are importing Aluminium Scrap. It turned out during inspection that the consignment also contained e-waste. Therefore, the authorities seized the goods on 24.09.2019 and adjudication proceedings were initiated. On 08.11.2019, the first respondent passed an order directing confiscation of the goods. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed appeal before the Commissioner of Customs(Appeals), Coimbatore. Vide order dated 19.02.2020, the appellate authority directed the petitioner herein to re-export the e-waste that was imported along with Aluminium Scrap. 3. The petitioner's consignment was lying with the second respondent. The petitioner requested the second respondent to permit the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. Now the question that arises for consideration is whether the second respondent was justified in insisting on payment of demurrage charges when the petitioner approaches them for clearance of the goods. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew my attention to the decision reported in (2018) 13 G.S.T.L. 273(Mad.) (Isha Exim V. A.D.G.Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai). Paragraph Nos.15 and 16 of the said order read as follows:- " The Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that since the goods were detained at the instance of the D.R.I., they are entitled for Demurrage and Detention Certificate for waiver of the warehousing and demurrages from the date of detention till the date of release of the g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppearing for the second respondent would contend that the said case law may not have any relevance to the facts on hand because in the reported decision, the Customs authority had issued Waiver Certificate whereas in the case on hand, no such Waiver Certificate has been produced. 9. Now the question is not whether the petitioner has been issued with any Waiver Certificate. The question is whether the petitioner is liable to pay demurrage and detention charges. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner draws my attention to the Notification No.26/2009- Cus (NT), dated 17.03.2009. Clause No.6 dealing with the responsibilities of Customs Cargo Service provider states that the Customs Cargo Service Provider shall not charge any rent or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pay any demurrage charges for this period. It is the second respondent who has to blame himself for the delay. However, it cannot be disputed that the second respondent has also been put to difficulty and hardship. The second respondent has not committed any fault at all. This Court called upon the petitioner to make a statement agreeing to pay some amount. The petitioner's counsel after getting instructions submitted that the petitioner will pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards demurrage charges and a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards detention charges. This undertaking is placed on record. 12. Now the question is whether the first respondent should be directed to issue Detention Certificate recommending waiver of demurrage and detention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
