TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 311X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner only if he can show that he was not at fault. I express my respectful disagreement with the aforesaid view. The language of the regulation is simple and plain. When the goods remain seized or detained by the Customs authority and the petitioner is not able to clear them, he should not be charged any rent or demurrage for the said period. The petitioner cannot be made liable to make any payment towards detention or demurrage for the period up to 19.02.2020. The petitioner would have become fully liable to pay the charges as demanded by the second respondent, if the second respondent had originally taken a reasonable stand. It is seen that the petitioner was ready to clear the goods then and there. But the second respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 petitioner to comply with the order dated 19.02.2020 passed by the appellate authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent 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 goods. It is pointed out that, on an earlier occasion, the petitioner ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w 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 demurrage on the goods seized or detained or confiscated. 10. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent 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 ₹ 1,00,000/- towards demurrage charges and a sum of ₹ 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 charges as prayed for. The stand of the first responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|