2015 (1) TMI 1079 - HC - Customs

Appeal challenges re-export judgment. Customs liability for detention charges clarified.

The appeal challenged a judgment allowing re-export of goods by the Trial Court, subject to certain conditions. The Trial Court refused to decide on ... Re-export of goods - Liability to port charges - Revenue contends that bar of Res-judicata applies - Held that:- Bar contained in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall not apply to this case because the learned Trial Court did not decide the issue. Unless an issue has been heard and finally decided there can be no res judicata. In that view of the matter, it is clarified that the aforesaid order directing the writ petitioner to pay the port charges shall not stand in the way nor shall constitute res judicata in deciding the issue as to whether the delay was on account of the laches on the part of the Customs authority and in deciding the issue as regards the consequences thereof. - Appeal disposed of. Issues:1. Challenge to judgment allowing re-export of goods by Trial Court.2. Refusal of Trial Court to decide on detention charges issue.3. Challenge to subsequent order by Commissioner of Customs.4. Argument against challenging subsequent order in present appeal.5. Contention regarding liability for detention charges.6. Interpretation of res judicata in the case.Analysis:1. The appeal challenged a judgment allowing re-export of goods by the Trial Court. The Trial Court permitted re-export of six consignments of furnace oil/fuel oil, subject to Customs authorities' approval and satisfaction of Port authorities' claims. The petitioner was granted liberty to recover any amounts due by initiating appropriate proceedings against the authorities, including Customs authorities.2. The Trial Court refused to decide on the issue of detention charges, citing uncertainty regarding claims by Port authorities and the responsibility for delays in testing the goods. The Court did not intend to decide the issue, considering it premature and inconclusive due to conflicting claims and lack of clarity on the port authorities' involvement.3. A subsequent order by the Commissioner of Customs allowed re-export of the goods against a penalty of Rs. 10 Lakhs, based on Customs Circular No. 100/2003 and Rule 17 of the Hazardous Waste Rules. This order was challenged in the appeal through a supplementary affidavit, raising concerns about the penalty and its legality.4. The Customs Department argued against challenging the subsequent order in the present appeal, stating that such grievances should be addressed through appropriate legal procedures. The challenge to the order dated 17th February, 2014, could not be entertained in connection with the appeal arising from the earlier order dated 18th December, 2013.5. The appellant contended that the Customs authority was responsible for the delays leading to detention charges, and therefore, any liability for such charges should be borne by the Customs authority. The argument emphasized that the delay was not due to any fault on the part of the petitioner.6. The Court clarified the application of res judicata, stating that since the Trial Court did not decide the issue of liability for port charges, there was no final decision on the matter. Therefore, the order directing the petitioner to pay the port charges would not constitute res judicata in determining the responsibility for the delay and its consequences. The appeal was disposed of with these observations.