2025 (1) TMI 271 - HC - Customs

Court Denies Petition for Cargo Release; Consignees Responsible for Clearing and Fees, Not Intermediaries. No Costs Awarded.

BILANDER LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

The HC dismissed the petitioner's request for a writ of mandamus to release detained containers, as the responsibility to clear the cargo lies with the ... Release of empty containers of Petitioner within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon’ble Court - charging ground rent, storage, handling or related charges from the Petitioners while releasing the empty containers to the Petitioner - HELD THAT:- It appears that the petitioner is only an intermediary of procuring containers and giving the same on lease to the consignees and it is for the consignees to get the material released and in absence thereof the Custom Authority may take appropriate action in accordance with law. The petitioner is not at loss as the petitioner is entitled to recover the dues of higher charges and other charges which may be payable for using the containers by the consignees in accordance with law. The prayers made in this petition cannot be granted while exercising extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petition dismissed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment are:Whether the petitioner, acting as an intermediary for procuring and leasing containers, is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the detained empty containers within a specified timeframe.Whether the respondents should be restrained from charging ground rent, storage, handling, or related charges while releasing the empty containers to the petitioner.Whether the petitioner is entitled to any other appropriate reliefs or orders under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.Whether the petitioner should be awarded the costs of the petition.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Entitlement to Writ of Mandamus for Release of ContainersRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The petitioner invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus. The relevant statutory provisions include Section 48 and Section 49 of the Customs Act, 1962, which deal with the auctioning of uncleared goods and warehousing of cargo, respectively. Circular No. 84 of 1995 issued by the Central Board of Customs was also referenced.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court noted that the petitioner is merely an intermediary responsible for procuring containers and leasing them to consignees. It emphasized that the responsibility to clear the cargo lies with the consignees, not the petitioner. The court found that the petitioner could recover dues for higher charges from the consignees.Key Evidence and Findings: The petitioner argued that the detention of containers was causing financial losses. However, the court found no direct loss to the petitioner, as they could recover costs from the consignees.Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the provisions of the Customs Act and relevant circulars, concluding that the petitioner did not demonstrate a legal right to demand the release of containers under the circumstances.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The petitioner's reliance on the circular for long-term detention was considered, but the court found that the statutory obligations under the Customs Act took precedence.Conclusions: The court concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to the relief sought under Article 226, as the responsibility for clearing the cargo rested with the consignees.Issue 2: Restraint on Charging FeesRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The petitioner sought relief from charges related to ground rent, storage, and handling, citing financial losses due to container detention.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court reasoned that since the petitioner could recover these charges from the consignees, there was no basis for restraining the respondents from levying such charges.Key Evidence and Findings: The petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to justify the waiver of charges.Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the principles of contractual obligations and the petitioner's role as an intermediary, finding no legal basis to prevent the respondents from charging fees.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court balanced the petitioner's financial concerns with the respondents' statutory rights to levy charges.Conclusions: The court dismissed the petitioner's request to restrain the respondents from charging fees.Issue 3: Entitlement to Other ReliefsRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The petitioner sought any other appropriate reliefs deemed fit by the court.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court found no merit in granting additional reliefs, as the primary issues were resolved against the petitioner.Key Evidence and Findings: The court found no exceptional circumstances warranting additional reliefs.Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the principles of equity and fairness, concluding that no further reliefs were justified.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court considered the petitioner's claims but found them unsupported by the facts and law.Conclusions: The court declined to grant any additional reliefs.Issue 4: Award of CostsRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The petitioner sought costs for the petition.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court found no basis for awarding costs, as the petition lacked merit.Key Evidence and Findings: The court found that the petitioner did not prevail on any substantive issue.Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the standard principles for awarding costs, determining that the petitioner was not entitled to them.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court considered the petitioner's request for costs but found it unjustified.Conclusions: The court denied the petitioner's request for costs.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: 'In our opinion, the petitioner is not at loss as the petitioner is entitled to recover the dues of higher charges and other charges which may be payable for using the containers by the consignees in accordance with law.'Core Principles Established: The court established that intermediaries like the petitioner, who lease containers, are not entitled to extraordinary reliefs under Article 226 when the responsibility for clearing cargo lies with the consignees.Final Determinations on Each Issue: The court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the claims for mandamus, restraint on charges, additional reliefs, or costs.