DRI investigations cannot be prohibited and detained goods release with demurrage waiver denied for non-original importer

The Delhi HC dismissed a writ petition seeking prohibition of DRI investigations and release of detained goods with waiver of demurrage charges. The court found goods detention justified, noting petitioner was not the original importer but claimed beneficial ownership later. Applying SC precedent from Mumbai Port Trust case, the court found no justification for granting relief. The petition became infructuous as goods were already released and valuation exercise concluded by the time of hearing.

---

---

Issues:
The issues involved in the judgment are the detention of goods, jurisdiction of proceedings, release of detained goods, waiver of demurrage charges, and legality of orders recalled.

Detention of Goods:
The writ petition sought relief from continuing illegal investigations and arbitrary actions causing harassment, declaring detention proceedings as null and void, and directing release of detained goods. The Court allowed the petition, noting the absence of irregularities and expressing no objection for release upon payment of differential duty. The respondents moved review petitions objecting to the release of goods and direction for demurrage charges borne by Customs authorities and DRI. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Mumbai Port Trust, the Court recalled the previous orders.

Release of Detained Goods and Waiver of Demurrage Charges:
A miscellaneous application was filed for appropriate directions as the goods were not released despite court orders. The Court directed the release of goods within a week and ordered Customs authorities and DRI to deposit a sum of Rs.50 lakhs. Respondents sought recall of orders based on the Mumbai Port Trust judgment, arguing against liability for demurrage charges unless detention was wholly unreasonable or mala fide. The Court recalled the orders dated 19 September 2018 and 29 October 2018.

Jurisdiction of Proceedings and Valuation of Goods:
Respondent DRI detained goods due to importation using IEC codes of persons other than the petitioner. The petitioner claimed ownership after a delay, and valuation revealed undervaluation by over 500%. The petitioner accepted the valuation but failed to provide evidence of an agreement with the original IEC holder. The detention was found justified based on the facts presented, and the petitioner's claim for relief was rejected.

Legality of Orders Recalled:
After recalling the previous orders, the respondent filed an affidavit detailing the detention and valuation process. The goods were released, and the valuation was accepted by the petitioner. The Court found no justification for the reliefs sought in the writ petition, rendering prayers (a) and (b) infructuous. The petition was dismissed, leaving open the option for the respondents to recover demurrage charges in accordance with the law.

---