9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... GH ITS PROPRIETOR, BISHT INTERNATIONAL THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR, ROOP SINGH ENTERPRISES THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR, VERSUS MANAGER, CELEBI IMPORT SHED AND ANR., UNION OF INDIA ORS. [ 2019 (12) TMI 957 - DELHI HIGH COURT ], where it was held that demurrage, to CELEBI, would be payable by the petitioners-importers in these writ petitions, and not by the Customs authorities. Thus, no liability to be fastened on the respondent - application dismissed. - R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17523 of 2021 - - - Dated:- 18-4-2022 - HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA AND HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE Appearance: Aishwarya Reddy (9713) for the petitioner(s) No. 1,2 Gupta Law Associates (9818) for the petitioner(s) No. 1,2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resent petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the Respondent herein to forthwith allow clearance of the goods imported by the petitioner vide Bill of Entry No.5173132 dated 24.08.2021 without execution of Bank Guaranteed and without payment of charges like container detention charges, demurrage charges, ground rent charges etc. on the terms and conditions that may be deemed fit by this Hon ble Court; (E) An ex-party ad-interim relief in terms of Paragraph-18(D) above may kindly be granted; (F) Any other further relief as may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also please be granted. 2. On 24th August, 2021, the Bill of Entry was filed by the writ applicant for import of the consignment in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . On 20th September, 2021, a letter came to be issued by the Consulate General of the Sri Lanka to the Chief Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad not only attesting the Certificate of origin and the verification letter issued thereupon but also requested that the appropriate steps may be taken to release the consignment thereby extending the benefit of duty concession. 9. On 4th October, 2021, letter came to be issued by the Commissioner of Customs to the Central Board of Indirect Taxes Customs for verification of the certificate of origin. 10. On 14th October, 2021, for the first time, the respondent addressed a communication to the writ applicant informing that the Country of Origin submitted by the writ applicant was sent to the Bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposed this writ application and submitted that no mala fide intention or any extraneous consideration can be attributed to the respondent in keeping the bills of entry pending till the verification was being completed. In such circumstances, referred to above, Mr. Lodha prays that there being no merit in this writ application, the same be rejected. 16. Mr. Lodha requested this Court to take into consideration the reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.2, which reads thus; 7) It is submitted that M/s. The Nut Co., Delhi, the petitioner herein, filed a bill of entry No.5173132 dated 24.08.2021 for import of Srilankan Areca Nut availing the benefit of Notification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the Bill of Entry filed by the Petitioner was processed and out of charge was issued on 24.11.2021. Copy of the letter dated 19.11.2021 and coy of the letter dated 15.11.2021 and copy of the letter dated 15.11.2021 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R2 and Annexure-R3. 10. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, it is most respectfully submitted that none of the actions of the Respondent were in violation of any provisions of law. The Answering Respondent had acted in accordance with the provisions of law including the CAROTAR. It is submitted that there is no unjustified and unlawful detention and departmental action was for the bonafide purpose to protect the government revenue. It is primary duty of the officers of the department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consider to be a possible understanding of the provisions of the Notification in force i.e. Notification No.104/95, dated 30th May, 1995. The subsequent change of opinion and issuance of circular bearing No.4/1006, dated 14th May, 1996 would not made the revenue liable as has been sought to be contended by the importer(s) unless the initial action is palpably wrong or wholly unacceptable which is not the position in the present case. A stand taken by the revenue or an action undertaken which is subsequently corrected by the Revenue itself or corrected on the basis of a subsequent judicial pronouncement will not, ipso facto, make the revenue liable for payment of demurrage charges as has been contended on behalf of the appellant(s)-importer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
