2022 (12) TMI 1572 - HC - Customs

Delhi HC orders goods warehousing with Adani Logistics Park within one week or petitioner may choose alternative facility

M/s. MEADOWS INTERNATIONAL CO. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & ORS.

Delhi HC directed respondents to arrange warehousing of goods with M/s Adani Logistics Park within one week. If respondents fail to comply, petitioner is ... Seeking compliance with the order - direction to ensure that the No Objection Certificate for warehousing is acted upon and necessary arrangements are made to shift the goods to warehouse as soon as possible in any event, within the period of two weeks from that date - HELD THAT:- The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that as per the information available with the petitioner M/s Adani Logistics Park is not in a position to warehouse the goods in question. This court considers it apposite to direct the respondents to make arrangements for warehousing the goods with M/s Adani Logistics Park as desired by it. If the respondents are unable to do within a period of one week from today, the respondents shall permit the petitioner to remove the goods and warehouse the same at the warehouse named by the petitioner. Application disposed off. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered by the Court in this matter are:- Whether the respondents complied with the Court's earlier directions regarding the issuance and implementation of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for warehousing of the petitioner's goods.- Whether the respondents were justified in refusing to allow warehousing of the petitioner's goods at the warehouse arranged by the petitioner, despite the petitioner fulfilling all requirements including payment and provision of warehousing certificates.- Whether the respondents can insist on warehousing the goods only at a particular warehouse (M/s Adani Logistics Park), and if so, whether such insistence was communicated properly and complied with the Court's orders.- What relief and directions are appropriate given the respondents' failure to act in accordance with the Court's orders and the petitioner's compliance with procedural requirements.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Compliance with Court's earlier directions regarding warehousing permission and issuance of NOCThe relevant legal framework includes the procedural directions issued by this Court in the writ petition proceedings, particularly the order dated 28.03.2022 and subsequent orders, which mandated that the respondents consider and dispose of the petitioner's application for destuffing and warehousing the goods by passing a speaking order. The Customs Act, 1962, specifically Section 49, which governs warehousing of imported goods, provides the statutory backdrop for the respondents' authority and obligations.The Court noted that despite clear directions, the respondents failed to file a counter-affidavit and did not comply with the order to dispose of the petitioner's application in a timely manner. This non-compliance was acknowledged by the respondents' counsel during hearings, and the Court had to repeatedly call for compliance.Key evidence includes the letters dated 11.07.2022 from the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, ICD Sonepat, which purported to grant permission for warehousing for seven containers but conditioned the petitioner to arrange warehousing space with refrigeration facilities and provide the warehousing certificate. The petitioner complied by arranging warehousing at a private warehouse and paying Rs. 5 lakhs.The Court found that the respondents' failure to act on the petitioner's compliance amounted to non-compliance with the Court's orders. The respondents' argument that warehousing outside the ICD precincts was not feasible was not supported by any prior communication or stipulation in the letters dated 11.07.2022, which did not restrict warehousing to any particular location.The Court's application of law to facts emphasized that the respondents were bound by the Court's directions and the statutory scheme under the Customs Act, and their failure to dispose of the application and implement the NOC in a timely manner was unjustified.Competing arguments from the respondents centered on logistical and feasibility concerns regarding warehousing outside the ICD precincts, but the Court found these to be insufficient to override the petitioner's right to have the goods warehoused once the NOC was issued and conditions fulfilled.The Court concluded that the respondents had failed to comply with their legal obligations and the Court's directions, warranting directions for immediate compliance.Issue 2: Legitimacy of respondents' insistence on warehousing at a particular warehouse (M/s Adani Logistics Park)The respondents' position evolved to insist that the goods be warehoused at M/s Adani Logistics Park, as indicated by their letter dated 07.12.2022 addressed to the warehouse and the petitioner's authorized representative. However, this requirement was not communicated at the time of the initial permission or in the letters dated 11.07.2022.The petitioner contended that M/s Adani Logistics Park was not in a position to warehouse the goods, and that the respondents' insistence was arbitrary and lacked prior notice or justification.The Court expressed displeasure at the respondents' lack of clarity and failure to communicate their preferences or conditions in a timely and transparent manner. It held that if the respondents wished the goods to be warehoused at a particular warehouse, they should have informed the petitioner accordingly at the outset.Applying principles of natural justice and procedural fairness, the Court found the respondents' conduct unsatisfactory and detrimental to the petitioner's rights.The Court directed the respondents to make arrangements for warehousing at M/s Adani Logistics Park within one week. Failing which, the petitioner would be permitted to remove the goods and warehouse them at the warehouse arranged by the petitioner.This approach balanced the respondents' operational concerns with the petitioner's rights and the need for compliance with Court orders.Issue 3: Relief and procedural directions in light of respondents' non-compliance and petitioner's complianceThe Court noted the petitioner's compliance with all procedural requirements, including arranging warehousing facilities and payment. It also considered the petitioner's apprehension regarding the safety of goods and potential pilferage during removal and warehousing.The Court ordered that the goods be sealed and that the removal process be video-graphed to ensure transparency and safeguard against pilferage.The petitioner's authorized representative was directed to appear before the Superintendent of ICD Patpargang for compliance, ensuring coordination between parties.The Court refrained from imposing costs on the respondents' officers despite their lackadaisical attitude but expressed its displeasure, signaling the seriousness of non-compliance.The directions ensured that the petitioner's rights were protected, the respondents complied with Court orders, and the goods were secured pending warehousing.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Court held:'Notwithstanding clear directions, the respondents did not comply with the direction to dispose of the petitioner's application for destuffing the goods and warehousing the same.''The letters dated 11.07.2022 did not mention any stipulation that the warehouse must be arranged in any particular warehouse.''In the event, the concerned officer wanted the goods to be shifted to the particular warehouse - which is apparent from the communications as noted above - the least the concerned officer could have done was to inform the petitioner in this regard.''Given the lackadaisical attitude of the respondents, we were inclined to impose cost on the concerned officer but are at present refraining from doing so.'Core principles established include the imperative that statutory authorities comply strictly with Court directions and procedural requirements, communicate clearly and promptly with affected parties, and not impose arbitrary conditions without notice. The Court reinforced the principle that where a party complies with procedural requirements and conditions, the authorities must facilitate the exercise of rights such as warehousing of goods without undue obstruction.Final determinations:- The respondents were directed to make arrangements for warehousing at M/s Adani Logistics Park within one week.- If the respondents failed to do so, the petitioner was permitted to remove and warehouse the goods at the petitioner's chosen warehouse.- The goods were to be sealed and removal video-graphed to prevent pilferage.- The petitioner's authorized representative was directed to coordinate with the Superintendent of ICD Patpargang for compliance.