9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 816X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s a Customs Cargo Service Provider as defined in Regulation 2(1) (b) of the Regulations. Being so, it is under a legal obligation to discharge the responsibilities as mandated under Regulation 6, more particularly in clause (l) thereof which clearly says that a Customs Cargo Service Provider shall not charge any rent or demurrage on the goods seized or detained or confiscated by the Superintendent of Customs or Appraiser or Inspector of Customs or Preventive Officer or Examining Officer as the case may be. The observations made by the Bombay High Court clinches the issue. The respondent no.3, as the customs cargo service provider as defined in regulation No.2(1)(b) of the Regulations, is not entitled in law to charge any rent or demurr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction, by declaring that, the detention charges of ₹ 17,51,964/- imposed by respondent no.2 and ground rent charges of ₹ 7,64,934/- imposed by respondent no.3 are unjust and illegal in terms of Regulations, 2009; (C) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 to refund the amount of ₹ 25,16,898/- (₹ 17,51,964/- to be refunded by respondent no.2 and ₹ 7,64,934/- to be refunded by respondent no.3) along with interest as may be deemed fit by this Hon ble Court to the petitioner in the interest of justice; (D) Your Lordships may be pleased to grant such other and further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transhipped in accordance with the provisions of Chapter VIII which deals with goods in transit. 15.1. As per sub-section (2), the person having custody of any imported goods in a customs area, whether under the provisions of sub-section (1) or under any law for the time being in force, shall keep a record of such goods and send a copy thereof to the proper officer; shall not permit such goods to be removed from the customs area or otherwise dealt with, except under and in accordance with the permission in writing of the proper officer or in such manner as may be prescribed. 15.2. Sub-section (3) deals with pilferation of imported goods in a customs area with which we are not presently concerned. 16. Section 141 of the Cu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der are mentioned in Regulation 6. Relevant for the present case is the responsibility mentioned in clause (l) which says that the Customs Cargo Service Provider shall subject to any other law for the time being in force, shall not charge any rent or demurrage on the goods seized or detained or confiscated by the Superintendent of Customs or Appraiser or Inspector of Customs or Preventive Officer or Examining Officer, as the case may be. 19. It is not in dispute that respondent No. 1 is a Customs Cargo Service Provider as defined in Regulation 2(1) (b) of the Regulations. Being so, it is under a legal obligation to discharge the responsibilities as mandated under Regulation 6, more particularly in clause (l) thereof which clearly says ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner to re-export the goods. Failure to do so has not only caused prejudice to the petitioner but would also disentitle respondent No. 1 from claiming any rent and demurrage for the period beyond 06.02.2019 till release of the goods because such retention of goods would be clearly unlawful being in violation of Regulation 6(1)(l) of the Regulations and the public notice dated 02.03.2010. 22. That being the position, we do not agree with the submissions made by Mr. Mishra that the dispute between petitioner and respondent No. 1 being contractual, petitioner should be relegated to the forum of civil court for obtaining relief. That apart, respondent No.1 being a Government of India enterprise has to act in a responsible manner. Moreover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
