2020 (1) TMI 1010 - HC - Customs

Dismissed Writ Petition leads to Insolvency Proceedings: Claim Submission and Auction Directive

M/s. German Express shipping Agency (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner of Customs, M/s. Aspinwall & Co. Ltd., R. Ragavendran

The Writ Petition was dismissed due to the absence of relevant provisions under Section 63 of the Customs Act, 1962. However, proceedings were ongoing ... Payment of rent and warehouse charges - provisions of Section 63 of the Customs Act, 1962 which stand deleted from the Act, with effect from 14.05.2016 - HELD THAT:- The petition is dismissed. However, since proceedings are stated to be pending before NCLT as against the exporter and a moratorium under Section 14 has been granted with a Resolution Professional ('RP') appointed for initiation of CIRP, the petitioner is permitted to approach the RP with a claim for the amount due from the Corporate Debtor. Such claim, if submitted will be considered by the RP strictly in the order of priority, as set out under Section 53 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Issues involved: Interpretation of Section 63 of the Customs Act, 1962; Moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; Claim submission and priority under Section 53 of the IB Code; Handling of claims by the Resolution Professional; Disposal of perishable goods.Interpretation of Section 63 of the Customs Act, 1962:The petitioners based their argument on the provisions of Section 63 of the Customs Act, 1962, which had been deleted from the Act effective from 14.05.2016. The learned Counsel for the petitioner acknowledged that there was no further support for the petitioners' prayer in this regard. Consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed due to the absence of relevant provisions.Moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016:Although the Writ Petition was dismissed, it was noted that proceedings were ongoing before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) against the exporter, with a moratorium granted under Section 14. A Resolution Professional (RP) had been appointed for initiating the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The petitioner was allowed to approach the RP to submit a claim for the amount due from the Corporate Debtor. The RP would consider such claims in accordance with the order of priority outlined under Section 53 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.Claim submission and priority under Section 53 of the IB Code:The RP, through its counsel, assured that no objection would be raised regarding the maintainability of the petitioner's claim, despite not being listed as a creditor in the debtor's books. The RP agreed to consider the claim in line with the priority order specified under Section 53 of the IB Code. The counsel for the CHA (R2) confirmed that the CHA's claim included that of the petitioner, emphasizing the need to ensure that the petitioner's claim was not duplicated.Handling of claims by the Resolution Professional:Given that the commodity in question, Sugar, was perishable, the RP was directed to promptly take possession of the consignment and arrange for its expeditious disposal through a public auction within four weeks from the date of receiving the court order. The RP was tasked with ensuring the efficient handling and disposal of the perishable goods without incurring any additional costs.This comprehensive analysis of the judgment addresses the key legal issues involved, including the interpretation of relevant statutory provisions, the implications of the moratorium under the IB Code, the process for claim submission and prioritization, and the necessary actions to be taken by the RP regarding the disposal of perishable goods.