TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 594X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For the Respondent(s) No. 3 : Aaditya D Bhatt(8580) For the Respondent(s) No. 4 : Notice Served ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA) 1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Prateek S. Bhatia for the petitioner, learned advocate Mr. Param Shah, Standing Counsel for learned advocate Mr. Nikunt Raval and learned advocate Mr. Aditya D. Bhatt for the respondents. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs : (A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or Mandamus or writ in the nature of Certiorari or Mandamus or or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, directing the Respondents to clear the goods comprising of Dry Dates imported vide Bills of Entries Nos.7736875 Dated 04.03.2022 and 7737090 dated 04.03.2022 and hand over the physical possession of the goods to the Petitioner; (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or Writ in the nature of Certiorari or Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction to the Respondent no.1 to initiate action against Respondent No.3 in terms of Sea Cargo Manifest Regul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... try, certifying the imported food items have been fumigated. 3.5. The petitioner filed the Bills of Entries on the basis of the documents supplied by the foreign supplier and the Customs duty payable was self assessed by the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner, at the time of filing of the Bill of Entry, it could not pay the Customs Duty since the goods were detained by the Customs. However, the Custom Duty as self assessed was levied and assessment was completed by the Respondents. 3.6. Despite the fact that the goods were examined by the Customs Officers, the same were ordered to be detained for further investigation. It is the case of the petitioner that the imported goods were detained without passing any order of detention or without issuance of any seizure memo in terms of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, which is the only enabling Section to detain the goods imported by the petitioner. 3.7. It is the case of the petitioner that in order to support the declaration made at the time of filing of the Bill of Entry, the petitioner furnished all the documents including the copies of Export Declaration issued by UAE Customs. 3.8. The pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Manifest Regulations, 2018, wherein it has been directed that the Shipping Lines shall not charge Container Demmurge Charges for the period of Detention. 3.13. It is the case of the petitioner that since respondent no.3 was not paying heed to the implementation of the Detention Memo dated 19.04.2022 and further invoices having been raised demanding detention charges, the petitioner vide letter dated 5.05.2022 requested the respondent no.1 to initiate action in terms of Regulations 11 and 12 of the Sea Cargo Manifest Regulation 2018 on account of failure of respondent no.3 to waive the detention and demurrage charges. 3.14. It is the case of the petitioner that neither the respondent no.3 was replying to the representations requesting for implementation of detention memo dated 19.04.2022 to waive the detention charges nor has any action been initiated by respondent no.1 against respondent no.3 for failure to grant waiver in terms of detention memo dated 19.04.2022 and therefore, being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition with the aforesaid prayers. 4.1. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that in spite of the fact that the Customs Authorities have di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... advocate Mr. Param Shah for learned advocate Mr. Nikunt Raval for the Customs Authorities relied upon the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and submitted that the Customs Authorities have already issued the order on 19.04.2022 directing the respondent Nos.3 not to charge any detention charges under Regulation 10(1)(I) of the SCMTR. 6.1. Learned advocate Mr.Aditya Bhatt for respondent No.3 relied upon the affidavit-inreply filed on behalf of the respondent No.3 and submitted that the shipment in question had the expected date of arrival of 05.03.2022, therefore being a shipping company, a Delivery Order was issued on 05.03.2022 with a validity of 15 days within which the importer is expected to get cargo Clearance from Customs and the same ws communicated to CHA of the importer, however, the importer i.e. the petitioner/its CHA could not get the Cargo cleared by 18.03.2020 and therefore, the validity of the Delivery Order issued on 5.03.2022 got over. It was submitted that respondent no.3 continued requesting the petitioner to take delivery of the cargo through the CHA of the petitioner. 6.2 Relying upon the provisions of Regulation 10(1)(I) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
