TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dents claiming to be the beneficial owner of the subject goods. Tested on facts and the principles enumerated by the Supreme Court in Mumbai Port Trust [ 2017 (7) TMI 977 - SUPREME COURT ], there are no justification to grant the reliefs as prayed for in the writ petition. Undisputedly, by the time the instant writ petition was taken up for consideration, it is informed that the goods had already been released and that the exercise of valuation had also been concluded - the prayers as framed in the writ petition are clearly rendered infructuous. Petition dismissed. - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA And HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA For the Petitioner : Mr. Ramakant Gaur, Ms. Sneha Arya, Ms. Harshi Gaur, M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be allowed on 19 September 2018 itself, when the matter was first called before the Court. The Court while proceeding to allow the writ petition had observed as follows:- The counsel for the Revenue contended that if the importer i.e. the IEC Holder purchases it, the goods could be released. This Court is of the opinion that since the goods have been in detention for more than a year and no irregularity of any kind whatsoever has been indicated by the DRI and furthermore, that the DRI has also expressed no objection for the release of the goods upon payment of the differential duty, if any, the imported goods should be released to the present petitioners who are undoubtedly the actual beneficiaries of the import. In the event, the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e were informed that the goods in question had already been released. The respondents, while seeking recall of the aforesaid orders, essentially took objection to the release of the goods as well as the direction for demurrage charges being borne by the Customs authorities and the DRI. 5. The respondents essentially placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Mumbai Port Trust v. Shri Lakshmi Steels Ors. (2018) 14 SCC 317 , and which had held that unless the detention of goods was found to be wholly unreasonable, patently mala fide and unjustified, there would be no occasion for a liability of demurrage charges being foisted upon either the Customs authorities or the DRI. We take note of the following principles ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngs. From the affidavit, we note that the DRI was constrained to detain the goods on 16 October 2017, finding that the importation had been effected by use of Importer Exporter Codes IEC standing in the name of persons other than the petitioner. The petitioner is stated to have approached the Department (DRI) claiming ownership of the goods only on 12 January 2018. 8. In the meanwhile, and consequent to detention, the goods were subjected to valuation. On the submission of a Valuation Report dated 11 April 2018, a No Objection Certificate for release of the subject goods to the petitioner came to be issued. 9. It is the case of the respondent that the valuation was duly accepted by the petitioner, and who also conceded to the fact t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n has increased by more than 500% . 11. Viewed in the aforesaid light, it is manifest that the detention of goods cannot be said to be unjustified. The record further reflects that the petitioner was not the original importer and only appeared subsequently before the respondents claiming to be the beneficial owner of the subject goods. Tested on the aforesaid facts and the principles enumerated by the Supreme Court in Mumbai Port Trust, we find no justification to grant the reliefs as prayed for in the writ petition. 12. Undisputedly, by the time the instant writ petition was taken up for consideration, we were informed that the goods had already been released and that the exercise of valuation had also been concluded. In view of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|