TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 999
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Nos. 1 and 2; Mr. Akshay A. Naik, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 3 along with Advocate Mr. P.S. Kadam; Mrs. R.S. Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 and Mr. A.B. Patil, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5. 3. The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus for issuing a direction to the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to recall the permission granted by them to the respondent No. 3 to proceed with the auction of the Cargo under the bills of lading bearing Nos. MAEU 222568555, MAEU 222568576 and MAEU 222568540 and so also the auction notice in that regard. It also seeks a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to reship the Cargo i.e. 1263.880 MPS of Steel Scrap ISRI - 211 - Grade under the aforesaid bills of lading, which are now lying with the respondent No. 3, at Wardha and reship the same to the port at Singapore. It also seeks a declaration that the auction conducted by the respondent No. 3 in which the bid of the respondent No. 5 has been accepted is illegal and liable to be set aside. In the alternative, a direction is sought to the respondent No. 3 to hand over the entire sale proceeds of the Cargo to the petitioner, unconditionally and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Respondent No. 4 for the same. A5 / Pg.137 148 6. 04.01.2023 Petitioner once again addressed an email to Singapore based agents of Respondent No. 4, requesting for issuing switch BL and for change in final destination from ICD Wardha to an ICD in Malanpur. A6 /Pg.138 149 7. 04.01.2023 Singapore based agents of Respondent No. 4 responded stating that Import Manifest for all BL's was closed on 12.12.2022 and requested the Petitioner to approach Respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 4 cited another reason that after checking their systems, they had determined that the Cargo could not be delivered to an ICD in Malanpur as ICD in Malanpur was not available for transit from JNPT. A6 /Pg.138-139 149-150 8. 04.01.2023 Import General Manifest ("IGM") issued by Respondent No. 4 for all three BL mentioning consignee as IOB, Maptrasco as first notify party and Petitioner as second notify party. A8 /Pg.145 156 9. 05.01.2023 Sub-manifest Transshipment Permit was issued for all containers without the name of any Indian Consignee. A9 /Pg.147 162 10. 05.01.2023 Vide their email, Asian One requested Maersk Spain to re-check as ear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ii. They will try their best to waive detention charges. iii. For Demurrage Charges Petitioner was asked to speak directly to Respondent No. 4. iv. Customs / Penalty to be borne by consignee / customer. A 14 /Pg. 164 190 17. 29.05.2023 Petitioner requested the Respondent No. 4 for a complete waiver of the detention charges, IGM amendment charges and demurrage since the containers had been wrongfully carried to ICD Wardha, which was against the instructions of the Petitioner and that the CFS liability was in excess of the value of the Cargo, and hence requested for a waiver of 100% detention charges, IGM amendment charges and demurrage. A 15 /Pg. 165 191 18. 01.06.2023 Vide their e-mail, Respondent No. 4 admitted to mishandling the Cargo by stating that: "... (4) The subject bookings were identified as having a foreign consignee at our pre-Manifest checks. (5) As we per Indian requirement only the Indian consignee or notify party was required to be presented on the bill of lading, we had sent communications with export teams to obtain the local consignee/notify party for these shipments. (6) Even a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Entry and clear the Cargo, the Cargo should be auctioned. A 19/Pg.171 197 22. 18.08.2023 3 (three) Import Tax Invoice bearing Nos. 5067320301, 5067320302 and 5067320303 were issued by the Indian agents of Respondent No. 4 to Petitioner towards various charges relating to the Cargo lying at ICD Wardha. 2 (two) of the said invoices incorrectly refer to Dhannar, Madhya Pradesh as the place of delivery of the Cargo, and only one invoice records ICD Wardha as place of delivery. A 20/Pg. 172 198 23. 18.10.2023 Respondent No. 3 appears to have addressed an e-mail to Respondent No. 4, requesting for an NOC to be addressed to Respondent No. 2 for auction of the Cargo. A 21/Pg. 177 203 24. 30.10.2023 Letter from Custodian to Maersk requesting for NOC to auction the Cargo. A 22/Pg. 179 205 25. 11.10.2023 18.10.2023 26.10.2023 27.10.2023 31.10.2023 09.11.2023 Respondent No. 3 seems to have addressed 6 (six) emails to Respondent No. 4, requesting for details of importer and directing them to file Bill of Entry and to clear the cargo immediately and if there is no response from them, they will proceed as per the Act and auction the C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Intelligence Branch, Customs ("SIIB Customs") informing them that it had communicated with the Respondent No. 4 as well as Maptrasco to clear of the Cargo, and that there was no response from them. A 33/Pg. 197 223 36. 01.01.2024 E-mail on behalf of the Respondent No. 3 to Maptrasco reiterating the request to clear the cargo. 314 37. 12.02.2024 Respondent No. 1 wrote to the Respondent No. 3, referring to a letter dated 24.01.2024 and directed it to prepare a list of cargo lying unclaimed/un-cleared for initiating further action. A 34/Pg. 198 224 38. 19.02.2024 Respondent No. 3 replied to the Assistant Commissioner, SIIB by furnishing the required information. A 35/Pg. 199 225 39. 01.03.2024 to 22.03.2024 Several correspondences appear to have been exchanged between the Assistant Commissioner, SIIB and Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 with regards to auction of the Cargo lying at ICD Wardha and drawing of 10 % inventory from the Cargo. A 36/Pg. 201 to A 40/Pg. 205 227 231 40. 03.04.2024 Respondent No. 1 wrote to the Respondent No. 2, with a copy marked to the Respondent No. 3, directing the Respondent No. 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hether Respondent No. 3 could guarantee that the condition of the Cargo was in its original state, owing to the tampering of the original seals. It also raised an issue with regard to the de-stuffing of its 5 (five) containers, and pointed out that the said containers had been tampered with without having secured the Petitioner's prior consent or concurrence. A 49/Pg. 243 269 49. 28.05.2024 Letter from Respondent No. 1, calling upon the Petitioner to submit a bank certified copy of the documents that were requested for by the Respondent No. 1. A 50/Pg. 244 270 50. 29.05.2024 Letter from Respondent No. 2 with a copy marked to the Petitioner, and referring to the Petitioner's grievances regarding tampering of the original seals of the 50 (fifty) containers and directed the Respondent No. 3 to submit a detailed explanation on an urgent basis. A 51/Pg. 245 271 51. 19.06.2024 Respondent No. 1 addressed a letter to the Indian Agents of Respondent No. 4 seeking clarifications as to why the import tax invoice mentions name of 'Rathi Iron and Steel Industries' as buyer when the Petitioner is claiming to be owner of the Cargo and that the same is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Customs, granting time to the Petitioner to submit detailed by 7^th August 2024. A 58/Pg. 257 283 60. 02.08.2024 Petitioner's Advocates letter addressed to all Respondents, placing on record the true and correct facts pertaining to the entire transaction. In the letter, the Petitioner has categorically stated that it had not received Respondent No. 3's purported letter dated 05.07.2024. The Petitioner also called upon the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 not to initiate any steps to auction the Cargo belonging to the Petitioner. The Petitioner further requested that instructions be issued to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 4 to reship the Cargo to Singapore. A 59/Pg.258 284 61. 08.08.2024 Letter from ICD, Wardha to Customs requesting for permission to auction the goods. A 60 /Pg. 275 301 62. 09.08.2024 Letter from SIIB Customs to ICD Wardha, granting permission for auction of the Cargo. A 61/Pg. 276 302 63. 20.08.2024 The auction notice is uploaded/published on MSTC Government website holding and conducting auctions for Authorities. 64. 30.08.2024 Letter by the Respondent No. 3 to the Respondent No. 2 regard....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....certificate. 75. 21.11.2024 Respondent No. 5 informed that it is just a trader and not a manufacturer of the goods. Hence, no pollution certificate is required by it. However, Respondent No. 5 has sold the goods to one Evonith Value Steel Ltd., Wardha, who is the manufacturer and has the necessary pollution certificate. Pg 6 of Pursis of R/5 76. 22.11.2024 That on the request of the Respondent No. 5 Evonith Value Steel Ltd. supplied a copy of the pollution Certificate, which was submitted to Respondent No. 3, which in turn submitted it to Customs. Letter by the Respondent No. 3 to the Respondent No. 2 submitting the Bills of Entry. Pg 7-11 of Pursis of R/5 Pg 21/ Pursis dated 06.12.2024 77. 23.11.2024 Respondent No. 5 entered in to an agreement of sell and purchase in the respect of auction purchased goods with Evonith Value Steel Ltd., Wardha, whereby the entire goods are sold for Rs. 5,36,87,074/- including GST. That one of the condition of the said agreement is that the goods are to be delivered in three stages on 09.12.2024, 12.12.2024 and 15.12.2024. If the goods are not delivered as per agreed term....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ha (INCHJ6) as requested by Shipping Line viz. respondent No. 4 while filing of IGM, a Transshipment Permit i.e. TP bearing number 2208285 dated 05/01/2023 was generated by ICES system automatically. "ICES"stands for "Indian Customs Electronic Data Interchange System". It is a system that uses Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) to electronically exchange information related to customs clearance without any human intervention. Thus the Entry Inward was granted to the said vessel on 05/01/2023 under Section 31 of the Act. (E) As mentioned above, the containers were lawfully discharged at the JNPT port on the basis of IGM filed by the shipping line which mentions destination port as INCHJ6 i.e. ICD Wardha (Indian Port), in accordance with Section 30 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with IGM Regulation 1971 as amended wherein no such condition is mentioned that the goods ab initio should not be allowed to unload in Indian Customs territory when there is no Indian importer. It is further submitted that IGM can be amended on the request of the shipping line on the basis of documentary evidence as provided under Section 30(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 which reads as: "S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f sufficient time granted for the same, the respondent No. 1 accorded the permission to auction the goods on 08/08/2024 under Section 48 of Customs Act, 1962. The same was informed to the petitioner (M/s. Asian One PTE Ltd., Singapore) vide email dated 09/08/2024. (J) Further, the custodian vide their letter dated 17/10/2024 informed this office that they had also requested M/s. Asian One PTE Ltd., Singapore on 05/07/2024 to file the Bill of Entry. (K) In view of global shortage of Containers Customs authorities are under executive instructions from CBIC to dispose the unclaimed cargo at the earliest so that the held up containers are used in export import under ease of business and affording containers to Indian trade. Also, IGST payment is held up post auction which is otherwise liable to be paid at the time of Out of Charge/clearance of the goods. 5. Mr. Sridharan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that for the purpose of importing goods into India, there is a necessity for the importer to be an Indian party, which according to him is in consonance with the public notice No. 33 of 2018 dated 07/03/2018 in which vide Clause 2.2 it is directed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... port of lading, the necessary details such as the name of the importer, his/its PAN number/GSTIN number/IE Code are necessary to be incorporated, in the bills of lading. 5.5. Further inviting our attention to the public notice No. 154 of 2018, dated 07/12/2018, it is contended that a proper declaration of description of the goods in Import General Manifest (IGM), has to be done by the shipping lines, which would include the requirement of furnishing the information, as indicated in public notice No. 33/2018 dated 07/03/2018. He, therefore, submits that in view of the above public notices, the carrier/shipping lines are required to declare details of cargo, shipper, consignee, number of packages, kind of packages, description of goods, bill of lading number and date, vessel details, etc, in the IGM, which, in turn, would also indicate the necessity of including the requirements as indicated in public notice No. 33/2018 therein. The very purpose, according to him, is to ensure correct filing of an IGM to the customs and import advance list to the terminals. 5.6. He further invites our attention to the provisions of Section 30 of the Customs Act, 1962, which according to him, c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....no unloading, on account of which, it is the customs authorities and the shipper/respondent No. 4, who are responsible for the unloading of the goods, which were at the first place not destined to be unloaded at Nhava Sheva port, itself, due to which the petitioner not being at fault, the consequences, as indicated above, need to follow. 5.10. Mr. Sridharan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further places reliance upon the provisions of Section 32 of the Customs Act, which mandate that the imported goods cannot be unloaded unless mentioned in the arrival or import manifest, which would cast an obligation upon the shipper and the customs to ensure the compliance with the statutory requirements in that regard and the petitioner was not at fault for the unloading of the goods. 5.11. He further relies upon Section 45 of the Customs Act to contend that the imported goods even if unloaded remain in the custody of the customs unless cleared. Reliance is also placed on Section 46 which contemplates lodging of a bill of entry which is the duty of the importer and to give a declaration in terms of Section 46(4) and to ensure that the requirements under Section 46(4-A) are fulf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... but an invoice for IGST on the bill of lading of the petitioner, and was for charges on account of services rendered by respondent No. 4/ Maersk, which was also during High Seas. He also invites our attention to the Cargo Shipment approval order dated 04/01/2023 (pg.147) issued at Nhava Sheva port to contend that the consignee shown therein was Maptrasco, which was not an Indian party, on account of which, the discharge of the cargo at Nhava Sheva, India, ought not to have been permitted by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2. 5.16. He also relies upon the communication dated 08/08/2024 (pg.275) by the respondent No. 3 to the customs seeking permission for auction and the communication dated 18/09/2024 (pg.286) by the customs to contend that the auction dated 06/09/2024 held by the custodian/respondent No. 3 had been cancelled, on account of which, also according to him, the petitioner was entitled for the reliefs claimed by it. 5.17. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Sridharan submits that goods not liable for confiscation could not have been auctioned and were required to be re-delivered to the petitioner as it was on account of the mistake of respondent No. 4/Maersk in not mentio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion to the e-mail dated 04/01/2023 (pg.138) by the petitioner to respondent No. 4/ Maersk for switching destination from Wardha to Malanpur and the reply dated 04/01/2023 (pg.138) by respondent No. 4/ Maersk that it cannot be done. Reliance is also placed upon the e-mail dated 17/04/2023 (pg.159) by Maptrasco to the respondent No. 4/Maersk (after 3 months) that it had found a buyer at Wardha and asking respondent No. 4/Maersk to assist, copy of which has been addressed to harsh@asianone, which is the petitioner, to contend that all throughout the petitioner was fully aware of the factual position that the goods were destined for India and the plea that is now being raised of a mistake of they having been unloaded at Nhava Sheva Port, Mumbai and transported to Wardha was not only incorrect but outright false is made only for the purpose of getting out of the mess, which the petitioner now found itself. He further contends that the petitioner and Maptrasco were hand in glove. 6.3. Mr. Akshay Naik, learned Senior Advocate further invites our attention to the definition of conveyance under Section 2 (9), Customs Area under Section 2 (11), Customs Port under Section 2 (12), Custom St....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....024 addressed by the Customs to the petitioner, to which there is an attachment in respect to the communication dated 09/07/2024 (Pg.252) intimating the communication by the respondent No. 3/custodian vide letter dated 05/07/2024 (pg.254) for auction of the goods as the bill of entry has not been filed by the petitioner and calling upon the petitioner to file bill of entry and clear the goods before the date given by the respondent No. 3/custodian, failing which the request of the respondent No. 3/custodian of the auction would be granted. This e-mail also contains an attachment which is the communication dated 05/07/2024 by the respondent No. 3 seeking to put the goods to auction. Reliance is also placed upon the e-mail dated 24/07/2024 (pg.256) by the petitioner to the Customs seeking extension of time by ten days to give reply and the communication dated 26/07/2024 by the Customs to the petitioner (pg.257) granting extension up to 07/08/2024 to the petitioner for filing reply; and so also the legal notice dated 02/08/2024 (pg.258) addressed to the respondents, to contend that throughout the petitioner was aware of the liability to lift the cargo within the statutory period as co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....livery of the cargo to the auction purchaser. It is also submitted that only on account of the pendency of the present petition the challan for the IGST as generated is not being accepted by the Authorities, which not being the fault of the respondent No. 3, nothing can be made out of it. 6.8. He further submits that though the goods were disembarked at Nhava Sheva Port on 04/01/2023 and had reached the ICD terminal of the respondent No. 3 at Wardha between 17/01/2023 to 09/03/2023, in spite of being aware of the responsibility and liability to get the goods cleared within the statutory period under Section 48, the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 4 have permitted the goods to lie in the ICD for nearly 5 about more than a period of one and half year and have approached the Court only after the auction was completed and therefore, were raising grounds which are based upon disputed facts, which cannot be gone into in the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, on account of which, the petition needs to be dismissed. He also submits, that all the actions of the respondent No. 3 are in consonance with the provisions of Section 48 read with Section 150 of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... point of time before the clearance of goods in terms of Section 46 of the Customs Act. He further invites our attention to the legal notice dated 02/08/2024 issued by the petitioner through counsel (pg.258) specifically paras 4 to 6, which according to him, indicates that the transshipment of the goods to ICD Wardha were within the specific knowledge of the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 and an attempt was made for change of the destination in the bill of lading from ICD Malanpur (MP). He, therefore, submits that since the mandate of Section 48 of the Customs Act, stood breached the necessary permission was granted for auction which having taken place the same cannot be now undone at the behest of the petitioner. 8.2. Mrs. R.S. Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4, submits that till date the petitioner has not placed any contractual dispute in any fora as against the respondent No. 4. She further submits that in terms of circular No. 14 of 2017 dated 11/04/2017 for the purpose of amending bill of lading, the original has to be submitted to the Customs, which was never provided by the petitioner to the respondent No. 4 at any point of time, on account of whic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nstructions to the shipping line functioning at Nhava Sheva Port to indicate the requirements as given in para 3(i) for the purpose of discharging the consignment cargo at the port. He, therefore, submits that the instructions as issued in the Public Notice No. 33/2018 are mandatory and binding upon the shipping lines and in case the manifest and the import advance list do not contain the name and details of the Indian consignee/importer, the goods could not have been permitted to be unloaded on the port, on which count, it is contended, that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are equally responsible. 9.5. He further places reliance upon Circular No. 154/2018, by which the Sea Cargo Manifest and Transhipment Regulations, 2018 (for short hereinafter, "Regulations of 2018") have been framed and brought into force w.e.f. 01/08/2018 and specifically Regulation 4 (2) (e) (i), which indicates the information to be included in the arrival manifest, has to be in Form VI (A), which according to him, makes the disclosure of the details of the consignee name, consignee code and address mandatory, and the enforcement of which is also the obligation and responsibility of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ition was being restricted to the enforcement of the claim to the auction money, and since the auction purchaser had already deposited the auction money and considering the impending vacation, by way of an interim arrangement, we had passed the following order on 17/12/2024 : "We have extensively heard the respective learned Counsels for the parties and have closed the matter for judgment, however, considering the exigency of the situation and since Mr. Shreedharan, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, has fairly stated that the Petitioner would be entitled to lay claim to the auction money, instead of claim for reshipment of the cargo to its point of origin, considering that the auction has been completed, we permit the custodian to pay the IGST and release the goods in the custody of the auction purchaser by following the due process as contemplated under Sections 46 and 47 of the Customs Act. 2. We, however, direct that the auction money which is received by the custodian shall be retained by it and the disbursement thereof shall be subject to the result of the Petition. 3. The interim order dated 27.11.2024 stand modified in the above t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... indicates that such importer, for the purposes of importing of goods into India, has to be an Indian Party. The Statutory provisions as contained in the Customs Act, also do not indicate, such a requirement, for the purpose of importing any goods in India. No such provision has been brought to our notice by the respective learned Counsels, which postulates such a requirement, before importing any goods in India. 13.1. We, therefore, have to consider, whether the Public Notices/Circulars issued by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, prescribe any such requirement and their effect. At the outset, it is necessary to state that directions in a public notice without any statutory backing are of no effect. The relevant public notices are Public Notice No. 33/2018 dated 07/03/2018 and Public Notice No. 154/2018 dated 07/12/2018. A perusal of the Public Notice No. 33/2018, indicates that it was issued on account of a number of instances where consignments of hazardous waste, other waste or restricted items were imported in the name of certain importers and remained uncleared, without anyone coming forward to claim the cargo, leading to a suspicion that such consignments were imported for dump....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... eligibility criteria prescribed for a person submitting a tender, satisfaction of which, was obviously a sine qua non, before the tender could be considered as a valid and acceptable one. We are here not considering a similar scenario. That however does not mean that the directions as contained in the Public Notice Nos. 33/2018 and 154/2018, were not to be followed, however, for the purposes of basing a claim on such directions, it was necessary, for the petitioner to have demonstrated that these directions were scrupulously being followed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and that in enforcement thereof, shippers were being prohibited to unload their consignments at the ports, in absence of such requirements being disclosed in the Bills of Lading and the Import General Manifest, for which there is no material placed on record, whatsoever, so as to enable us to take 5 an according view that unless the Bills of Lading and the Import General Manifest disclosed the (a) Import and Export Code (IEC) of the Importer, (b) GST identification number (GSTIN) of the importer and (c) Official e-mail id of the importer, there could have been no discharge of the cargo by the Shipper at the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion furnished in Form-VIA and Form-VI-B, - (i) before 48 hours of expected arrival at the destination customs port, for the vessels on voyage of more than ninety-six hours between departure from the last port of call and arrival at the next port; (ii) before 24 hours of expected arrival at the destination customs port, for the vessels on voyage of forty-eight to ninety-six hours between departure from the last port of call and arrival at the next port; (iii) before 6 hours of expected arrival at the destination customs port for the vessels on voyage of less than forty-eight hours between departure from the last port of call and arrival at the next port: Provided that for vessels carrying non-containerized cargo, whether or not carrying containerized cargo, the authorized sea carrier may, irrespective of the voyage duration, update the arrival manifest before entry inwards at the destination customs port." Clause 2 of Regulation 4, indicates the information to be included in the Arrival Manifest, for which various Forms as indicated therein are prescribed. Form VI A, with which we are concerned, is a Form to be used for Goods to be landed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Form I of the Export Manifest (Vessels) Regulations, 1976, in the manner as was applicable before the commencement of these regulations, till the date mentioned in columns (3) of the table below for the Customs Ports in the column (2) of the said table. TABLE Sr.No. Customs Ports Date till which the transitional provisions are applicable (1) (2) (3) 1. Mormugao (INMRM1) 10.09.2024 2. Mangalore (INNML1) 30.09.2024 3. Mumbai (INBOM1) and Kandla (INIXY1) 15.10.2024 4. Tuticorin (INTUT1) and Vishakhapatmam (INVTZ1) 31.10.2024 5. Ennore (INER1), Kattupalli (INKAT1) and Cochin (INCOK1) 15.11.2024 6. All the Customs Ports other than mentioned at Sr. No. 1 to 5 above 31.11.2024 [Inserted vide GSR 531(E), dt.31-8-2024, w.e.f. 31-8-2024]." Thus, till 31/11/2024, the requirement to indicate the name of the consignee as well as to furnish the details of the consignee such as IE Code, GSTIN and other requirements as indicated in Public Notice Nos.33/2018 and 154/2018, which now stand culminated in Statutory Regulations, vide Regulation No. 4 of the Regulations of 2018, stood postponed, on account of the transitiona....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... available to the petitioner a facility of 12 days free detention at destination, meaning 5 thereby that the consignments/cargo, was to be cleared by the petitioner, within that time frame, failing which any further detention of the consignment cargo, would call for charges to be payable by the petitioner, in terms of rent or demurrage as would be the policy applicable at the destination. The e-mails dated 21/12/2022 (pg.137); 04/01/2023 (pg.138); 05/01/2023 (pg.140) which are from [email protected], the petitioner, would indicate that a change of final destination was being sought by the petitioner in respect of the consignment/cargo from Wardha to ICD Malanpur, the vessel being berthed on 05/01/2023, which in fact would substantiate that they were indeed destined for India and further transshipment to Wardha. The Bills of Lading contain a further endorsement 'FREIGHT PREPAID', which in turn would indicate that the freight till the destination which was Wardha, already stood paid. All this would point out that all throughout, right from the date of the sales contract dated 25/08/2022 (pg.81), till the discharge of the cargo on 05/01/2023 at Nhava Sheva, India and its further trans....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y of the respondent No. 3, as contended by Mr. Sridharan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, we are in agreement with it, for the reason, that the language of Section 45 of the Customs Act, mandates it to be so, which is reproduced as under : 5 "Section 45 :- Restrictions on custody and removal of imported goods.- (1) Save as otherwise provided in any law for the time being in force, all imported goods unloaded in a customs area, shall remain in the custody of such person as may be approved by the Principal Commissioner of 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. (2) The person having custody of any imported goods in a customs area, whether under the provisions of sub-section or under any law for the time being in force,-- (a) shall keep a record of such goods and send a copy thereof to the proper officer; (b) 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 prescri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....extended time as the proper officer may allow, in this regard, which is spelt out from Sections 48 and 49 of the Customs Act. Thus, till the goods are cleared by passing of an order in that regard under Section 47 by the proper officer, they continue to remain in custody of the customs. This is not to say that such custody has to continue indefinitely, for as indicated above, in terms of the mandate of Section 48, the duration is only 30 days from the date of unloading or such extended time, which may be allowed by the proper officer under Section 49. It is, thus, apparent that the duty, obligation and responsibility to get the imported goods cleared for home consumption, and accordingly released from the custody of the Customs, is of the consignee/importer in terms of Sections 45 to 48 of the Customs Act. The free detention period, during which the goods could be stored at the Custom station or such other place, as indicated by the respondent No. 4, in its bills of lading was 12 days at 5 the destination. In case the consignee/importer does not clear the goods after unloading within the time frame as provided by Section 48 or such extended time as permitted under Section 49, the g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Indian Custom Procedure; the e-mail communications dated 23/12/2023 and 01/01/2024 on the same lines, would indicate that Maptrasco as well as the petitioner were throughout aware of the liability to pay the rental charges, on account of the overstay of the consignment with the respondent No. 3. In fact, the earlier communication dated 15/05/2024 (pg.212) by the petitioner to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, ICD Wardha, in fact, indicates its knowledge of the entire set of events which had led to the consignment reaching ICD Wardha, and so also its obligation and responsibility to get them cleared as the said communication specifically records the intention of the petitioner to pay the customs duty and clear the consignments. Even if customs duty was not payable on the consignment, as is contended, still, this communication indicates the willingness of the petitioner to clear the consignment, which in turn would mandate it to follow the procedure for clearance as indicate in Sections 45 to 49 of the Customs Act. 18. Section 48 of the Customs Act, permits the custodian/respondent No. 3, to sell the goods, in its custody, if they are not cleared within 30 days from....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r, during the aforesaid 10 days as sought by it, by the e-mail dated 26/07/2024 (pg.257) by the office of the respondent No. 2, addressed to the petitioner, further time was granted till 5 07/08/2024, as a final opportunity. To this, there is a legal notice issued by the petitioner on 02/08/2024 (pg.258) raising several claims. All this would indicate that the plea raised by the petitioner of absence of notice under Section 150 (1) of the Customs Act, in respect of the auction conducted on 06/09/2024, is without any 10 merits whatsoever, as all throughout the petitioner was fully aware of the claim made by the respondent No. 3 for rental charges as well as its application to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for sale of the goods in terms of Section 48 r/w Section 150 of the Customs Act. The plea of want of notice to the petitioner, must therefore fail, in view of the above discussion. 19. That leads us to the contention regarding cancellation of permission of the proper officer under Section 48 of the Customs Act. As indicated above, the e-mail dated 09/07/2024 (pg.252) issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Customs Commissionerate to the petitioner, already intimated to it abou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ther charges, if any, payable in respect of the goods sold, to the carrier, if notice of such charges has been given to the person having the custody of the goods, which is the respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 4, who is the Shipper, nor any other entity has placed on record any document to show that any amount is due and payable to it, on account of the freight and other charges. On the contrary, the bills of lading, indicate that the freight was prepaid, till the delivery point, i.e. ICD Wardha, and therefore, it is apparent that there cannot be any claim on this count. The sale proceeds, then in terms of Section 150 (2) (c) have to be applied to the payment of the duty, if any, on the goods sold. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2, have not raised any claim on account of any duty, payable in respect of the goods sold, rather it has been indicated that no customs duty was payable, which is reflected from the communication dated 04/12/2024 by the Assistant Commissioner (SIIB) addressed to the Assistant Commissioner (Legal), Nagpur Customs, Nagpur. The sale proceeds then in terms of Section 150 (2) (d) have to be applied to the payment of the charges in respect of the goods sold, du....