Court overturns Customs order, directs refund with interest. Criticizes respondent's behavior, orders costs.

The court set aside the Customs department's order confiscating goods under the Customs Act, 1962. Respondent No.3 was directed to refund the excess amount to the petitioner within a specified timeframe, with interest payable. The court criticized Respondent No.3's lack of response and high-handed behavior, ordering payment of costs to the petitioner and considering further action against Respondent No.3 for non-compliance with the Public Notice.

---

---

Issues:
1. Confiscation of goods under Customs Act, 1962
2. Appeal process before Commissioner (Appeals) and CESTAT
3. Waiver of detention and demurrage charges
4. Compliance with Public Notice No.26/2010
5. Refusal to grant waiver by Respondent No.3
6. Lack of response and high-handed behavior by Respondent No.3
7. Court's directions for refund and payment of interest
8. Consideration of action against Respondent No.3

Confiscation of Goods under Customs Act, 1962:
The petitioner imported a consignment of Pistachio Kernels Oil Stock Feed Grade, detained by the Department of Customs, leading to an investigation. The Customs department passed an order confiscating the goods under Sections 111(m) and 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, imposing a penalty. The petitioner appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) and later to CESTAT, which set aside the Commissioner's order.

Waiver of Detention and Demurrage Charges:
The petitioner sought a waiver of detention and demurrage charges as per Public Notice No.26/2010, submitting a detention waiver certificate. Despite this, Respondent No.3 did not grant the waiver for the period the goods were detained, leading to a dispute.

Compliance with Public Notice No.26/2010:
The Public Notice specified that no charges should be levied if goods are detained without fault of the importer, with a prescribed format for a detention waiver certificate. The petitioner alleged that Respondent No.3 did not comply with this notice.

Refusal to Grant Waiver by Respondent No.3:
Respondent No.3 refused to waive demurrage and detention charges for the entire period requested by the petitioner, only granting it for a limited period, leading to dissatisfaction and further legal action.

Lack of Response and High-Handed Behavior by Respondent No.3:
Despite opportunities, Respondent No.3 did not file a reply or provide reasons for refusal, displaying high-handed behavior. The court criticized this conduct and directed Respondent No.3 to refund the excess amount to the petitioner.

Court's Directions for Refund and Payment of Interest:
The court directed Respondent No.3 to consider a specific waiver certificate issued by Respondent No.2 and refund the excess amount to the petitioner within a specified timeframe, with interest payable on the refunded amount.

Consideration of Action Against Respondent No.3:
The court directed Respondent No.2 to assess if any action is necessary against Respondent No.3 in light of the non-compliance with the Public Notice. The petition was disposed of with costs, with Respondent No.3 ordered to pay a sum as costs to the petitioner in addition to the refund amount.

---