9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 253X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner cannot be penalised. This Court is of the considered opinion that because of certain procedural delays, the petitioner was penalised. The petitioner was not at fault, in view of the fact that the detention made by the Customs Authorities was found to be wrong, which was subsequently clarified by the Ministry of Agriculture - this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner need not be penalised and they have not committed any fault or irregularity at any point of time and the procedural delays should not affect the rights of an importer and therefore, this Court is inclined to consider this writ petition. The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to refund a sum of ₹ 25,85,403/- paid by the petitioner on 05.08.2014 as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny valid reason. The petitioner was taking effective steps to take delivery of the goods, but was not allowed to clear the cargo by the Customs authorities. The Customs Authorities had sent a letter to the Ministry of Agriculture to issue necessary clarifications with reference to the production of certificate from the Regional Fertilizer Control Laboratory (RFCL). The Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, vide letter dated 01.08.2012, issued the following clarifications. Kindly refer to your letter No.247/2014-15-Gr.2 dated 23.07.2014 on the subject mentioned above. Under Clause 30 of Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 (FCO), the laboratory is required to analyse the sample and forward the analysis report within 30 days from the da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the importer is not at fault. The certificate from RFCL is not required for the purpose of releasing Ammonium Sulphate as such. The certificate is required only at the time of supply of Ammonium sulphate to the dealers or to any other person. Thus, the action taken by the respondents in detaining the goods is not in consonance with the provisions of the Act. In view of the fact that the petitioner/importer was not at fault, they are not liable to pay the demurrage charges. Thus, the demurrage charges already paid by the petitioner is to to be refunded. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent, Chennai Port Trust, disputed the said contention by stating that the Port Trust had acted in accordance with th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tained by the Customs Authorities, were released. Therefore, the initial action of the Customs Authorities demanding the certificate from RFCL was incorrect and based on the subsequent clarifications issued by the Ministry of Agriculture, the Customs Authorities released the goods. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be faulted and the detention of the goods was made by the Customs Authorities on account of certain misconception, for which the petitioner cannot be penalised. 9. As far as the 1st respondent Port Trust is concerned, they are not connected with the detention of Ammoniam Sulphate in bulk or release of the said goods. The only ground on which they imposed the demurrage charges is that, the goods were lying under the custody of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
