TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 1462
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are taken note of as because of the events which have taken place during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court as well as this Court, the issue involved today is in a very narrow campus. 4. The appellant herein had imported 2296.50 metric tonnes of Carbon Black Feed Stock (hereinafter referred to as 'CBFS' for short) from one M/s. Koppers Carbon and Chemical Limited Company sometime in the beginning of the year 2014. The aforesaid material was imported through three invoice bills and it reached Inland Container Division (ICD) at Dadri, in between June-September, 2014. On inspection, the Customs authorities detained these goods on 6-9-2014 on the ground that the goods appeared to be hazardous in nature and for the clea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Customs Authorities as well as the demand raised by respondent No. 4. It is this writ petition in which the impugned orders have been passed by the High Court. The High Court has come to a categorical conclusion that there was a seizure of goods by the Customs Authorities and the said seizure was not proper. After giving these findings, the High Court went to the question of payment of warehouse charges for intervening period. Taking note of Section 63 of the Customs Act as well as regulations framed and, particularly, Regulation 6(1)(1) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009, the High Court came to the conclusion that when the goods are seized by the Customs Authorities, the Customs Cargo Service provider is not entit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt had challenged orders of the Customs Authorities as well as respondent No. 4 by filing writ petition in the High Court. 7. In the High Court, the stand of the appellant has been vindicated. However, the judgment is given by the High Court only on 14-10-2015 [2016 (335) E.L.T. 423 (All.)]. Thus, the proceedings were pending before the High Court from 15-1-2015 till 14-10-2015. It is during the pendency of these proceedings and in the absence of any interim order passed by the High Court allowing the appellant to clear the goods, it was not possible for the appellant to clear those goods. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the High Court should have held that no charges towards any rent or demurrage are payable till t....