Court upholds CONCOR's right to levy charges under Customs Act, dismissing petitioner's waiver request. Negligence claims not actionable.

The court upheld CONCOR's right to levy charges under Section 63 of the Customs Act, dismissing the petitioner's request for waiver of demurrage/detention charges under Regulation 6(1)(l) of HCCAR, 2009. It also ruled out compensation claims for negligence and apathy, stating they are not actionable in a writ proceeding. Additionally, the court found no violation of HCCAR, 2009, by CONCOR in imposing charges despite the issuance of a detention certificate by customs, citing the relevant legal provisions and precedents. The writ petition was ultimately dismissed in favor of CONCOR.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Waiver of demurrage/detention charges.
2. Compensation for negligence and apathy leading to perishing/deterioration of goods.
3. Action against respondent for violation of Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulations, 2009 (HCCAR, 2009).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Waiver of Demurrage/Detention Charges:
The petitioner sought the release of goods without charging demurrage/detention charges, citing Regulation 6(1)(l) of HCCAR, 2009, which states that no rent or demurrage should be charged on goods seized or detained by customs. The petitioner argued that CONCOR, as a Customs Cargo Service Provider, is bound by these regulations and should waive the charges once a detention certificate is issued by customs.

CONCOR countered that Section 63 of the Customs Act, 1962, which was in force at the time, empowers warehouse keepers to levy rent and warehouse charges. They argued that Regulation 6(1)(l) of HCCAR, 2009, is subject to any other law in force, including Section 63. Therefore, CONCOR's policy of not waiving charges in cases where penalties or fines were imposed by customs authorities was not in violation of any legislation.

The court agreed with CONCOR, stating that Regulation 6(1)(l) of HCCAR, 2009, is subject to Section 63 of the Customs Act, which was in force when the waiver was denied. The court also referred to the Division Bench's decision in Trip Communication Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India, which supported the view that if penalties or fines are imposed, the importer is liable to pay the charges. The court held that the Settlement Commission, while imposing penalties, acts as a customs authority, making the petitioner's case ineligible for waiver under CONCOR's policy.

2. Compensation for Negligence and Apathy Leading to Perishing/Deterioration of Goods:
The petitioner claimed compensation for the deterioration of goods due to the negligence and apathy of the respondents, particularly the delay in issuing the provisional release order and the harsh conditions imposed for release.

The court dismissed this claim, stating that the negligence and apathy of the respondents cannot be adjudicated in a writ proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. Action Against Respondent for Violation of HCCAR, 2009:
The petitioner sought action against the respondent for violating HCCAR, 2009, by imposing demurrage/detention charges despite the issuance of a detention certificate by customs.

The court found no violation of HCCAR, 2009, by CONCOR. It held that CONCOR's policy of not waiving charges in cases where penalties or fines were imposed was consistent with Section 63 of the Customs Act, which was in force at the relevant time. The court also referenced the decision in Monika India Vs Union of India, which stated that customs authorities can issue detention certificates but cannot direct Cargo Service Providers to waive charges.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding CONCOR's right to levy charges under Section 63 of the Customs Act and finding no violation of HCCAR, 2009. The court also dismissed the claims for compensation and action against the respondent, stating that these issues cannot be adjudicated in a writ proceeding.

---