TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 699X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ursuant to the order of seizure or any other action required to be taken will be decided on adjudication of the Show Cause Notice. Seeking direction against the respondent to either pay or waive the payment of demurrage during the time the goods were put on hold - HELD THAT:- The respondent relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon ble Apex Court in MUMBAI PORT TRUST VERSUS M/S. SHRI LAKSHMI STEELS AND ORS. ETC. [ 2017 (7) TMI 977 - SUPREME COURT ] which, in somewhat similar circumstances, held that the High Court could not in writ proceedings have directed DRI/Customs to pay the detention charges to the shipping line since these were to be paid on the basis of a contract between the respondent importers and the shipping line ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he same after hearing the parties; d. Pass ad-interim ex-parte order in terms of prayer at (a) and above; e. Award cost of this Petition; 2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the consignment comprising of Knotted Woollen Carpets was imported by the petitioners from the United States of America on 10.08.2021. The Bill of Entry being B/E No. 4995142, along with other import documents were submitted by the petitioner with the respondent authorities. 3. On 12.08.2021, another consignment comprising of Knotted Woollen Carpets was imported from United States of Emirates and the Bill of Entry being B/E No. 5090730, along with other import documents were submitted by the petitioner to the respondent authorities. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that the Respondent No. 3 had placed before the Court, the seizure order passed on 09.02.2022 and the notice thereof to the petitioner by a letter dated 11.02.2022. 9. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the detailed investigation has been carried out and it is found that no business activities are being carried out by the petitioner company from the declared premises. He submits that the present case is one of import of mis-declared goods in the name of non-existing entity and is not a genuine import being in violation of Section 7 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. 10. He further submits that the order for seizure of the goods was, thereafter, passed on 09.02.2022, which was brought to the kn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elay on the part of DRI and the Customs Authorities, the respondent importers have also been guilty of delaying the matter and, therefore, they cannot claim that they are not liable to pay demurrage and detention charges. We may, however, clarify that the respondent importers are free to approach the Mumbai Port Trust in terms of Section 53 of the Act for exemption and remission of demurrage and other charges and the Board may take a sympathetic view while considering the case of the respondent importers under Section 53. 50. As far as detention charges of the shipping line are concerned, in addition to what we have observed above, we are of the view that the High Court could not in writ proceedings have directed DRI/Customs to pay the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
