2020 (8) TMI 657 - HC - Customs

Court orders Customs Cargo Service Provider to release container, emphasizing statutory compliance. Petitioner granted Writ of Mandamus.

M/s. Vanathi Exports Private Ltd., Versus The Commissioner of Customs (Exports), Chennai, The Joint Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), M/s. E-Ship Global Logistics,

M/s. Vanathi Exports Private Ltd., Versus The Commissioner of Customs (Exports), Chennai, The Joint Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), M/s. E-Ship ... Issues Involved:1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition.2. Definition and applicability of 'Customs Cargo Service Provider' (CCSP).3. Justification for withholding the delivery order for the 1x40' container.4. Waiver of detention charges during the COVID-19 lockdown period.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:The third respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the Writ Petition, arguing that the dispute is contractual and not amenable to writ jurisdiction. The third respondent contended that they are merely freight forwarders and delivery agents, not a 'Customs Cargo Service Provider' (CCSP) under the Handling of Cargo and Customs Areas Regulations, 2009. The court, however, referred to precedents such as M/S. P.Perichi Gounder Memorial Vs. The Commissioner of Customs and M Balaji Dekors Vs. The Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, which established that disputes involving statutory regulations can be addressed through a Writ Petition. The court concluded that the Writ Petition is maintainable as it involves the implementation of statutory regulations.2. Definition and Applicability of 'Customs Cargo Service Provider' (CCSP):The court examined Regulation 2(1)(b) of the Handling of Cargo and Customs Areas Regulations, 2009, which defines a CCSP as 'any person responsible for receipt, storage, delivery, dispatch or otherwise handling of imported goods and export goods.' The third respondent, identified as an agent for the carrier in the Bill of Lading, falls within this definition. The court noted that even without formal recognition as a CCSP, the third respondent is bound by the regulations if they fulfill the criteria. The court cited the Perichi Gounder Memorial case, which held that both CFS and Steamer Agents qualify as CCSPs and must implement the orders of the Customs Department.3. Justification for Withholding the Delivery Order for the 1x40' Container:The petitioner argued that the third respondent unjustifiably withheld the delivery order for the 1x40' container despite the payment of delivery charges. The third respondent insisted on the payment of detention charges and the return of 2x20' containers as a precondition. The court referred to the principles laid down in A.K.Gupta & Sons Vs. Damodar Valley Corporation and Sidramappa Vs. Rajashetty, which state that distinct causes of action should not be combined. The court concluded that the third respondent's refusal to issue the delivery order for the 1x40' container based on the dispute over the 2x20' containers was unjustified.4. Waiver of Detention Charges During the COVID-19 Lockdown Period:The petitioner contended that the government advisories mandated a waiver of detention charges during the COVID-19 lockdown period. The third respondent claimed to have granted this waiver for the 1x40' container, which was not disputed by the petitioner. The court directed the third respondent to release the delivery order for the 1x40' container upon receipt of the outstanding dues of Rs. 8,61,358.30/-. The court also noted that the third respondent could pursue their claims related to the 2x20' containers through appropriate legal channels.Conclusion:The court issued a Writ of Mandamus directing the third respondent to release the delivery order for the 1x40' container upon payment of Rs. 8,61,358.30/- by the petitioner. The Writ Petition was allowed, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed without costs.