TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 662
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a very high-handed arbitrary action on the part of the respondent no.5 herein has dragged the writ-applicant to a second round of litigation. 3. We take notice of the fact that the writ-applicant had come before this Court by filing the Special Civil Application No.14849 of 2021 essentially with a prayer that the consignment comprising Chinese Knotted Woollen Carpets detained on 06.01.2021 by the respondent no.2 may be ordered to be released. 4. A Co-ordinate bench of this Court to which one of us [Ms. Nisha M. Thakore, J] was a party after exhaustive hearing delivered a detailed judgment disposing of the writ-application with appropriate directions and observations. We quote the observations made in Paragraphs-31, 32 and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... into the binding decision of Canon India Pvt. Ltd.(supra) of the Supreme Court. 33. Petition is allowed. Consignment of carpets of the petitioner shall be released without loss of time within a week of receipt of the copy of this order. The petitioner shall abide by his undertaking without fail. The petitioner is also permitted to request for demurrage to the respondent, which shall consider the said request in wake of the findings and observations made herein on following due process of law." 5. Thus, despite there being a direction to release the consignment of Carpets without any further delay, till this date, the consignment has not been released as the respondent no.5 is demanding demurrage charges to the tune of Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ther respondents shall be served directly. On the returnable date, notify this matter on top of the board. Direct service today is permitted." 2. Today, Mr. Ashish Verma, the learned counsel has appeared on behalf of the respondent No.5. The respondent No.5 before us is the shipping line. Mr. Verma would submit that unless and until the dues recoverable from the writ applicant towards the container detention charges are not paid, the writ applicant should not be permitted to lift the goods. According to him, his client has a contractual lien. 3. Mr. Verma would submit that his argument referred to above is fortified by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mumbai Port Trust Vs. M/s. Shri Lakshmi Steels and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e writ applicant invited our attention to one order passed by this Court in the case of Green Gold Timbers Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Directors Akhilesh Manglik Vs. Commissioner of Customs in Special Civil Application No.10082 of 2020 decided on 12.01.2022, wherein this Court took the view that the customs cargo service provider as defined in the Regulation No.2(1)(b) of the Regulations is not entitled in law to charge any rent or demurrage on the goods seized or detained or confiscated by the Customs or any other Authority. However, according to Mr. Verma, the order of this Court in the case of Green Gold Timbers Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) is with respect to ground rent charges and not helpful to the writ applicant. 5. We propose to admit this writ a....