2022 (1) TMI 222 - HC - Customs

Court Grants Relief in Customs Appeal, Upholds CESTAT Decision

M/s. Kelhome Impex Versus The Commissioner Of Customs Cochin

M/s. Kelhome Impex Versus The Commissioner Of Customs Cochin - 2022 (380) E.L.T. 288 (Ker.) Issues:1. Direction to permit clearance of goods in compliance with a tribunal order2. Waiver of demurrage/storage and other charges requested by the petitioner3. Confiscation of goods imported by the petitioner and subsequent legal proceedings4. Acceptance of the tribunal order by the respondents without challenge5. Liability for demurrage/storage charges due to a wrong order of confiscation6. Obligation of third party CFS regarding rent or demurrage on seized goods7. Delay in issuing the required certificate by the 1st respondent8. Direction to consider the case for issuing a certificate under Regulation 6(l) within ten daysAnalysis:1. The writ petition sought a direction to allow the clearance of goods in compliance with an order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The goods were imported by the petitioner, and the confiscation order issued by the Commissioner was challenged before the CESTAT. The Tribunal, through its order, set aside the confiscation and directed the Customs authorities to release the goods on payment of appropriate customs duty already paid by the petitioner. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief.2. The petitioner also requested a waiver of demurrage/storage and other charges as a result of the confiscation order being found incorrect by the CESTAT. The CESTAT's order indicated that the petitioner should not be held liable for such charges due to the wrongful confiscation. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent confirmed that the CESTAT's order had been accepted without challenge.3. The CESTAT's order highlighted that the confiscation of the petitioner's goods was contrary to law, leading to the petitioner being subjected to injustice. The petitioner should not bear any liability for demurrage/storage charges resulting from the wrongful confiscation. The CESTAT's order had attained finality, and the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of waiver of such charges.4. Regulation 6(l) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009, stipulates that third-party Container Freight Stations (CFS) should not charge rent or demurrage on seized goods upon production of a certificate from the Commissioner of Customs. The delay in issuing this certificate by the 1st respondent was noted, despite the finality of the CESTAT's order.5. Consequently, the court directed the 1st respondent to consider issuing the certificate under Regulation 6(l) within ten days from the date of receipt of the judgment copy. This would enable the release of the detained goods to the petitioner promptly, absolving the petitioner of any liability for demurrage/storage charges due to the incorrect confiscation order.