9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 422X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eak in four containers. One M/s.Maria International Pte., Limited is the seller. One M/s.Cosco Shipping Lines (India) Private Limited is the provider of logistics services. The fourth respondent herein is the agent of the said service provider. The shipment arrived at Tuticorin Port on 09.05.2020. The petitioner had free time till 25.05.2020 to clear the goods. The fourth respondent raised an invoice on 27.05.2020 calling upon the petitioner to make payment of USD 4800 (INR 4,37,544) being the container detention charges upto 29.05.2020. Though the petitioner had made the said payment, due to reasons that are not quite clear, the amount was not credited to the account of the fourth respondent immediately. Only by 05.06.2020, the amount go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. According to him, the petitioner is not at all fault. The total value of the consignment would only be around Rs. 40,00,000/-. If the petitioner is made to pay the warehousing charges and the shipping charges, as presently quantified by the private respondents, the petitioner will have to abandon the goods altogether. That would ruin him financially. The petitioner's counsel, therefore, wanted this Court to bear in mind the conduct of the parties and grant equitable relief. 4.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the customs authority submitted that they cannot be blamed. They had merely enforced the statutory mandate. If the goods are not cleared within the time prescribed in the statute, the customs authority in order to d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to the importer and with the permission of the proper officer be sold by the person having the custody thereof" 8.In the case on hand, the customs authority had issued notice on 15.09.2020 calling upon the petitioner to clear the goods. In the counter affidavit, the customs authority has pointed out that though the customs authority could have issued first notice on the expiry of the 30th day, they chose to wait for about three months before issuing the notice. Since proper response was not forthcoming from the petitioner, they decided to e-auction the imported goods. The goods had arrived on 09.05.2020. The bill of entry was filed on 21.05.2020. Warehousing was ordered on 21.05.2020. The Customs Authority has pointed out that if the go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e respondents herein to permit clearance of the goods, even though the petitioner has not satisfied the contractual demand raised by the shipping liner/warehousing entity. I cannot find fault with the customs authority. Nor can I issue any mandamus for compelling the private respondents. At the same time, I cannot help observing that the pathetic situation, in which the petitioner is finding himself, cannot really be ascribed to any fault on his part. The petitioner is a genuine importer and he honored the demand raised by the shipping liner. The goods are not prohibited goods. Unfortunately, though the amount was debited from his account, it did not get credited in the account of the fourth respondent. 12.Taking into account the scope of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
