Customs – Gujarat High Court: Without passing any order of seizure under Section 110, when there was a detention and there was a specific denial for shifting the goods to the public warehouse in order to save the demurrage and detention charges, the respondent authority cannot insist on the demurrage which is in its hand – Appeal partly allowed [Order attached]

Your free trial / membership plan is expired.
Kindly subscribe to get complete access to indirect tax updates and issue wise cases
Why subscribe to us ?
Get complete access to news updates and download copy of case laws/ notification/ circular etc.
Be a part of our WhatsApp group and read real time indirect tax updates
Access to ready case laws of General Issues and Industry Wide Issues under GST
Access to relevant provisions of law / circular in respect to the issues, along with trail of their amendments
Write your GST query to us for evaluation
Subscription Charges:*
Indirect tax updates -
6 months @299 / 1 Year @499 only
Indirect tax updates + Issue wise cases -
6 months @1199 / 1 Year @1999 only
*Plus applicable GST
Admin
28-Feb-2023 14:21:03
Order Date – 06 January 2023
Parties: M/s Rugs Rural Vs The Principal Commissioner of Customs
Facts –
- The Petitioner, M/s Rugs Rural, imported Chinese Knotted Woolen Carpets which were detained by the respondent on 06.01.2021. The request for the release of the consignment was allowed by the court without loss of time within one week of receipt of copy of the order.
- The consignment had not been released despite the specific direction of this Court to release the goods within a week and also the petitioner forwarded the communication of the respondent no.3 to the respondent no.5 and requested the respondent no.5 to waive the demurrage and issue the delivery order through several e-mails, but it denied the request and insisted on the payment of the demurrage charges.
- Hence, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.
Issue –
- Whether the denial of release of consignment and insisting payment of demurrage charges are in order?
Order –
- The divisional bench of Hon’ble High Court observed that the consignment has not been released till date as the respondent is demanding the demurrage charges. The strong objection on the part of the respondent is that unless the container detention charges are paid, he cannot be permitted to lift the goods as his client has a contractual lien. Since the respondent was not a party in the previous petition, it was not heard while directing the release on 07.01.2022.
- The detention of the goods without the seizure under Section 110 of the Act was not found sustainable under the law and the respondent had acted as if it was powerless and it needed to continue to use this tactic of detaining the goods till the petitioner actually attends to the proceedings of inquiry/investigation. It is worth noting that now that inquiry is completed and there has been a cooperation of the petitioner as well.
- Therefore, on the issue of detention charges, the order of the CESTAT shall govern the parties as it would also require the authority concerned to enter into the merits of the facts.
- Hence the petition is partly allowed. The respondents shall release the consignment imported dated 06.08.2021 on the petitioner furnishing the bank guarantee for a period of six (06) months.
Related Post
Post Category
Your free trial/ membership plan has expired. Kindly subscribe to get complete access of tax news updates.
Why subscribe to us ?
Get complete access to news updates
Access to the Order Copy of the case law/ Notification/ Circular etc
Be a part of our Whatsapp group and read real time tax updates
Access to ready case laws/ circulars on general and industry-wide issues under GST
Submit your GST issues to us for evaluation