TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 816
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, by declaring that, the detention charges of Rs. 17,51,964/- imposed by respondent no.2 and ground rent charges of Rs. 7,64,934/- imposed by respondent no.3 are unjust and illegal in terms of Regulations, 2009; (C) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 to refund the amount of Rs. 25,16,898/- (Rs. 17,51,964/- to be refunded by respondent no.2 and Rs. 7,64,934/- to be refunded by respondent no.3) along with interest as may be deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Customs or Commissioner of Customs until they are cleared for home consumption or are warehoused or are transhipped in accordance with the provisions of Chapter VIII which deals with goods in transit. 15.1. As per sub-section (2), the person having custody of any imported goods in a customs area, whether under the provisions of sub-section (1) or under any law for the time being in force, shall keep a record of such goods and send a copy thereof to the proper officer; shall not permit such goods to be removed from the customs area or otherwise dealt with, except under and in accordance with the permission in writing of the proper officer or in such manner as may be prescribed. 15.2. Sub-section (3) deals with pilferation of imported g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r. A large number of responsibilities to be discharged by Customs Cargo Service Provider are mentioned in Regulation 6. Relevant for the present case is the responsibility mentioned in clause (l) which says that the Customs Cargo Service Provider shall subject to any other law for the time being in force, shall not charge any rent or demurrage on the goods seized or detained or confiscated by the Superintendent of Customs or Appraiser or Inspector of Customs or Preventive Officer or Examining Officer, as the case may be. 19. It is not in dispute that respondent No. 1 is a Customs Cargo Service Provider as defined in Regulation 2(1) (b) of the Regulations. Being so, it is under a legal obligation to discharge the responsibilities as manda....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he goods kept under its custody on or before 06.02.2019 to enable the petitioner to re-export the goods. Failure to do so has not only caused prejudice to the petitioner but would also disentitle respondent No. 1 from claiming any rent and demurrage for the period beyond 06.02.2019 till release of the goods because such retention of goods would be clearly unlawful being in violation of Regulation 6(1)(l) of the Regulations and the public notice dated 02.03.2010. 22. That being the position, we do not agree with the submissions made by Mr. Mishra that the dispute between petitioner and respondent No. 1 being contractual, petitioner should be relegated to the forum of civil court for obtaining relief. That apart, respondent No.1 being a Go....