2021 (7) TMI 1371 - HC - Customs

Detained container release petitions dismissed as premature, stressing statutory compliance and proper legal recourse.

The court found that the writ petitions seeking the release of detained containers were premature and not maintainable. It emphasized the importance of ... Illegal detention of imported consignments - prime contention of the petitioner is that, certain containers imported are illegally detained by the respondents, and in spite of their request, the respondents have not taken any steps to release the containers as specified - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the considered opinion that imports and exports are to be done by following the procedures contemplated and by complying with the mandatory requirements. The relief as such sought for in the present writ petition to direct the respondents to forthwith release and return the containers, itself is absurd. Such a relief requires adjudication in view of the fact that there are statutory requirements and compliance of the terms and conditions with the Customs Cargo Service Provider and other aspects of the matter. Without adjudicating all those factors, the High Court cannot issue a writ granting the relief in the writ petition filed. When disputed facts are raised between the parties, the same cannot be entertained and the High Court cannot conduct a roving enquiry with reference to the dispute, which is to be resolved with reference to the documents and evidence produced before the competent authorities - Petition disposed off. Issues:1. Detention of containers by respondents.2. Maintainability of writ petition.3. Compliance with statutory requirements for release of containers.4. Legal remedy for resolution of disputes.Analysis:Issue 1: Detention of containers by respondentsThe petitioner, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, acting as an agent of a Korean company, sought relief in W.P. No. 33098 of 2018 to direct the respondents to release and return specific containers detained by them. The contention was that the containers were illegally detained by the respondents, leading to the writ petition. However, the respondents argued that the writ petition was not maintainable as various procedures exist for the release of imported containers. The court opined that the relief sought was premature without adjudicating on statutory requirements and compliance with terms and conditions. It emphasized that disputes of a civil nature should be resolved through the appropriate forum, and the High Court cannot entertain a writ petition in such cases.Issue 2: Maintainability of writ petitionThe court highlighted that the proper procedure must be followed for imports and exports, including compliance with mandatory requirements. It deemed the relief sought in the writ petition as premature and absurd without proper adjudication of statutory requirements and compliance with terms and conditions. The court emphasized that disputed facts should be resolved through the competent authorities or forums, and a writ petition cannot substitute the required adjudication process.Issue 3: Compliance with statutory requirements for release of containersThe court emphasized the need for adherence to statutory requirements and compliance with terms and conditions for the release of containers. It stated that without adjudicating on these factors, the High Court cannot grant the relief sought in the writ petition. The court highlighted the importance of resolving disputes through the appropriate forums and authorities, rather than seeking relief directly through a writ petition.Issue 4: Legal remedy for resolution of disputesIn W.P. No. 33104 of 2018, the petitioner sought a declaration that the detention of containers by the respondent was illegal. The court reiterated that proper adjudication based on documents and evidence is essential for such declarations. It emphasized that the High Court cannot entertain adjudication that should be done through the appropriate legal processes. The petitioner was advised to approach competent authorities or forums for the resolution of issues in accordance with the law.In conclusion, both writ petitions were disposed of without costs, emphasizing the need for adherence to statutory requirements, compliance with terms and conditions, and resolution of disputes through the appropriate legal channels rather than seeking direct relief through writ petitions.