TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 344
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o forthwith issue a Detention Certificate for the entire period from the date of lading of the cargo in 06.12.2020 till the date of re-export or disposal, stating that the delay was due to inaction by Respondent No. 3; D. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing respondent no. 2 and 3 to pay the demurrage, storage and container detention charges accrued on the Aluminium Scrap Cargo from 06.12.2020 till the re-export on the ground that the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the delay caused by the Respondent no. 2 and 3; E. Direct the respondents to permit immediate re-export of the said Aluminium Scrap Cargo and complete all procedural formalities within a time bound manner as may be prescribed by this Hon'ble Court." 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is incorporated under laws of United Arab Emirates having its principal place of business at UAE. The petitioner had shipped a consignment of Aluminium Scrap to India through the shipping line M/s. Sunstar Shipping Services, Gandhidham. The said consignment was sold by the petitioner to the importer-M/s. Ghanshyam Metal Udhyog, Ahmedabad. However, upon arrival ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lated that the re-export could only be considered once the Bill of Entry would be filed. It was also stated in the said letter that respondent No. 4 can also dispose of the cargo as per the prevailing procedure. 3.8 Thereafter, the shipping line of the petitioner, by letter dated 22.05.2021, again approached respondent No. 3 reiterating that the Indian importer had relinquished its claim over the goods. As a result, the ownership of the unclaimed cargo now vests with the petitioner and therefore, there was no need to file Bill of Entry by the petitioner or the shipping line authorized by the petitioner. 3.9 As there was no response to the communication made by the shipping line of the petitioner, another letter dated 22.05.2021 was addressed to respondent No. 3 to review the decision and allow reexport of the goods without filing of Bill of Entry. On 18.06.2021, a final reminder was sent by the shipping line of the petitioner once again detailing the situation and requested the re-export to be allowed. 3.10 Respondent No. 4 thereafter issued auction notice dated 20.10.2021 addressed to the shipping line of the petitioner to auction the goods lying with it. Thereafter, it appears....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ocess and prayed for waiver of the demurrage and detention charges levied on the container till the shipment is reshipped. 3.13 The respondent No. 3, by letter dated 27.04.2024, informed the petitioner that Additional Commissioner of Customs respondent No. 2 has imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under section 117 of the Customs Act,1962 and allowed re-export of the subject goods. The petitioner was requested to depute two independent valuers for identification of the goods imported and to arrange placement of the containers for examination of the goods by the competent authority and to arrange representative for re-export of the goods. 3.14 The petitioner accordingly paid Rs. 10,000/- on 20.05.2024 in Challan TR-6. Thereafter, panchnama was drawn on 22.05.2025 by the respondent and the goods were verified. It appears that on 27.05.2024, the respondent No. 3 passed an order for re-export after directing the petitioner to arrange for stuffing the cargo back into containers as the same were de-stuffed for examination of the goods in co-ordination with respondent No. 4. The respondent No. 3, by further letter dated 10.07.2024, informed the petitioner that the Principal Commissioner of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gned methodology firstly by filing the petition before this Court in 2021 challenging the order passed by the respondent No. 3 to permit re-export on furnishing the Bill of Entry. This Court issued the notice for final disposal by order dated 02.12.2021. It appears that the petitioner did not take any action till 2023 and in December, 2023 the petitioner withdrew the petition with a view to make a representation before the respondent-authority and projected that this Court has passed an order directing the petitioner to make a representation and further directed to return the cargo to the petitioner. However, this Court had not passed any such order and only permitted the petitioner to withdraw the petition. 6. Be that as it may, the subsequent events clearly speak that the respondent-authorities, after considering the request of the petitioner in view of the representation made, has passed an order of re-export on 10.07.2024. It appears that thereafter also, the petitioner did not take any further action and communicated to respondent No. 4 for waiver of the detention and demurrage charges with regard to containers and on receipt of the letter from the respondent No. 4 on 14.10.2....