TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 1374
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndia Ltd. (hereinafter, 'CCIL'). 3. It is alleged by the petitioner that the demurrages were paid by the petitioner for no fault of the petitioner. 4. Similarly, this petitioner is also in search of refund of excess Customs duty which is paid at Rs. 2,03,987/-, whereas no such refund application has been preferred by the petitioner prior to this writ. 5. At this juncture, a brief recapitulation of facts is necessary. 6. The petitioner company, M/s. Mate (India) Pvt. Ltd., imported fertilizers for agriculture, from a manufacturer based in Turkey, vide a commercial invoice dated 22nd February, 2019. The goods reached the Inland Container Depot, Tuglakabad, Delhi on the 17th April, 2019, the bill of entry, for w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....no objection, for the release of goods, subject to reassessment and payment of deferential duty with interest. 13. On the 2nd of September, 2019, the petitioner wrote to the Executive Director, CCI, seeking waiver of Demurrage/Detention charges levied to the petitioner, in light of the petitioner's correspondence dated 22nd August, 2019. On the next day, the respondent reassessed the petitioner's bill of entry and determined the duty payable to be Rs. 6,69,629/-. On the day following the reassessment, the petitioner paid the remainder of the duty payable, i.e. Rs. 4,70,716/-. 14. The Respondent No. 4, CCIL, levied demurrage charge to the tune of Rs. 8,36,209/-, which was duly paid by the petitioner, on 11th September, 2019. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the other respondents to pay/remit the demurrage charges. 20. The issue at hand, is squarely covered by our judgment rendered on 20th December, 2019 in Global Impex v. Manager, CELBI Import Shed [MANU/DE/435l/2019]. 21. The petitioner, therein, had filed a Bill of Entry, dated 3rd May, 2019, for import of unbranded readymade garments. A request for first check of the consignment was also made. Consequent thereupon, the consignment was, purportedly, subjected to 100% examination. However, on 6th May, 2019, the consignment was put on hold, for further examination, by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive). Thereafter it was found that the goods were misdeclared in quantity, and thus, vide Panchnama dated 9th May, 2019, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icate, or by any other communication, direct the custodian not to charge demurrage, or to waive the whole, or part, of the demurrage chargeable by it. (iv) In applying the above principles, the issue of whether the goods in question had been licitly, or illicitly, imported, as also the detention of the goods, by the Customs authorities, was justified or unjustified, bona fide or mala fide, are entirely irrelevant. (v) The liability to pay the demurrage is on the importer, irrespective of the justifiability, or unjustifiability, of the seizure and detention of the goods by the Customs authorities. Even in a case in which the seizure is entirely unjustified, the importer would, in the firs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stoms authority expends a reasonable time in dispensation of their sovereign functions of search, seizure and investigation, cannot lead to transference of liability to pay demurrage, to the Customs authorities. 24. The other issue that raises before us, is, this petitioner is also in search of refund of excess Customs duty which is paid at Rs. 2,03,987/-, whereas no such refund application has been preferred by the petitioner prior to this writ and has neither approached the respondents as per the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. In light of this, we are not inclined to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, when an alternative efficacious remedy for obtaining the refund claim is....