Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2018 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 2300 - HC - CustomsSeeking to issue a writ of mandamus (writ issued by a superior court commanding the performance of a specified official act or duty) - seeking direction to respondents to issue detention certificate in connection with certain containers, which had been detained by issuing an order u/s. 5 of the Customs Act,1962 - permission denied to export of goods due to which huge amount and ground rent/demurrages was paid by petitioner (at no fault of petitioner). HELD THAT:- here is no dispute that the petitioner intended to export the goods of 87 containers from Kandla Port Trust. As per the provisions of The Customs Act, the petitioner after following the procedure, ultimately got clearance certificate for all 87 containers, which were issued by the Customs Officer under the provisions of Sections 50 and 51 of the Customs Act, before 27.6.2006. Since the shipment was not available (as claimed by the petitioner in the memo of the petition and not denied by the respondent) remaining 67 containers could not be physically exported beyond the territory of India and therefore, while dealing with the applicability of notification dated 27/06/2006, Division Bench of this Court as well as Hon’ble Apex Court, the action of the respondent authorities in not permitting the petitioner to load the goods, held to be illegal - By not permitting the petitioner to export the goods, at no fault of the petitioner, he was paying ground rent/ demurrages to respondent Nos.4 and 5, whose containers were used for storing the goods for export. Even though specific directions were issued, the respondent authorities were not permitting the petitioner to export the consignments. Though specific request was made by the petitioner and petitioner had to incur huge expenses towards ground rent/ demurrages towards such attitude of the officers and when the action of respondent authorities from the beginning was declared illegal, and are required to be deprecated and are bound to face the consequences. In case of SHIPPING CORPN. OF INDIA LTD. VERSUS CL. JAIN WOOLEN MILLS [2001 (4) TMI 83 - SUPREME COURT] the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that even confiscation of goods, which ultimately find out to be unsuccessful, the Court has held the same as illegal, parties would be entitled for demurrages, etc. - Similarly in unreported decision rendered in the case of Unisilk Ltd. [2013 (4) TMI 237 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], Division Bench of this Court has considered the same as having similar facts and held that persons would be entitled for demurrages. Respondent No.2 is hereby directed to pay the demurrages, after examining the details supplied by the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 24/06/2006 till the amount is paid - petition allowed.
|