Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2021 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (4) TMI 422 - HC - CustomsWarehoused goods - goods were not cleared within the time limit stipulated in Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962, the customs authority proposed to auction the goods - contractual relationship and contractual liability - requirement to issue waiver certificate or not - HELD THAT:- It is well settled that no Court can issue 'Mandamus' contrary to law. The statutory authority cannot be restrained from discharging its statutory functions. In the case on hand, the customs authority had issued notice on 15.09.2020 calling upon the petitioner to clear the goods. In the counter affidavit, the customs authority has pointed out that though the customs authority could have issued first notice on the expiry of the 30th day, they chose to wait for about three months before issuing the notice. Since proper response was not forthcoming from the petitioner, they decided to e-auction the imported goods. The goods had arrived on 09.05.2020 - The bill of entry was filed on 21.05.2020. Warehousing was ordered on 21.05.2020. The Customs Authority has pointed out that if the goods had been seized or detained or confiscated by them, the Customs Cargo Services Provider cannot charge any rent or demurrage on the goods. In the case on hand, there has been no seizure or detention or confiscation - If there was detention of goods and the customs authority had issued waiver certificate and still the warehousing entity refuses to release the goods, the importer can certainly move the Writ Court for relief. But the case on hand is not one such. The customs authority at no point of time detained the goods. Therefore, this is purely a contractual issue between the petitioner on the one hand and the private respondents on the other. In such a case, it would not be open to the Writ Court to issue any Mandamus compelling the private respondents herein to permit clearance of the goods, even though the petitioner has not satisfied the contractual demand raised by the shipping liner/warehousing entity - The goods are not prohibited goods. Unfortunately, though the amount was debited from his account, it did not get credited in the account of the fourth respondent. While the petitioner is willing to pay a sum of ₹ 2,00,000/- to the warehousing entity, the demand of the third respondent is ₹ 35,00,000/-. Since there are no meeting point, no purpose will be in keeping the issue alive. No grant of any relief in these writ petitions. These Writ Petitions stand dismissed.
|