2021-TIOL-1496-HC-MAD-CUS
RM Trading Vs Pr.CC
Cus - Relief sought for in the present writ petition is directing the respondents, to cause refund of Rs.38,99,383/- collected by the 3rd respondent [M/s. Hyundai Merchant Marine India Private Limited] by dishonouring the 'Detention Certificate' issued by the 2nd respondent permitting clearance of the goods imported by the petitioner to clear goods imported vide Bill of Entry dated 28.02.2017 without payment of demurrage and container detention charges in terms of Regulation 6 (1) (l) of Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009.
Held:
+ Court is of the considered opinion that absolutely there is no quarrel with reference to the legal propositions propounded by the petitioner, which is well founded. Once the imported goods are confiscated by the Customs authorities, they became in possession of the goods and, therefore, the Service Provider shall not levy any charges for the said confiscated goods. If at all any deposits are collected in this regard, the said deposits are to be refunded. [para 15]
+ Court is of the considered opinion that a thin distinction is to be drawn in between the Detention certificate as well as the relief granted by various Courts with reference to the Detention certificate issued by the Customs Department. The in-between possible or existing disputes are relevant for the purpose of granting the relief and such disputes between the Service Provider and an importer or exporter, cannot be adjudicated in a writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. [para 17]
+ Before resolving the disputes between the Customs Cargo Service Provider and the exporter or importer, the Statutory Detention Certificate issued by the Customs Authorities cannot be acted upon. There may be some disputes regarding collection of service charges or otherwise between the Customs Cargo service Providers and the importer or exporter. Thus, High Court cannot directly issue a direction to release the goods or refund the deposit before adjudication of any of these disputes between the Service Provider and importer or exporter and such an adjudication cannot be exercised in writ proceedings.
+ Admittedly, the Detention Certificate is issued by the Customs Authorities and the Customs Authorities are not connected with the contract between the service provider and the importer. Thus, the Detention Certificate confers a right to claim the relief of refund or release of goods. However, the right is to be exercised in the manner known to law and after resolving the disputes, if any, prevails between the service provider and the importer or exporter. [para 18]
+ In the present case, admittedly, the goods are being maintained by the Service providers. On confiscation, the Customs authorities take possession. However, the goods are still under the custody of the Service Provider. The goods are not taken away from the premises of the Service Provider. Therefore, the grievances of the service provider are also to be looked into and considered, while granting the relief of release of the imported goods or refund of the deposits, if any made.[para 20]
+ Court has held in [ W.P.No . 15490 of 2020, Order dated 22.06.2021] that Detention Certificate is to be construed as Eligibility Certificate for the purpose of claiming refund and the refund is to be granted after resolving the disputes, if any, exist between the service providers and importers or exporters.
+ The contractual relationship between the service providers, who is a private person and the petitioner cannot be resolved under writ jurisdiction by the High Court. Thus, based on the Detention Certificate issued by the Customs Authorities, the petitioner has to adjudicate the same before the Competent Forum or claiming recovery of refund. [para 24]
+ This being the nature of the Detention Certificate issued under the Regulations, this Court is of an opinion that mere issuance of Detention Certificate would not confer any right to get refund directly from service provider, who is a private party. The contract between the service provider and the importer and exporter are to be considered and terms and conditions are to be looked into with reference to the facts and an adjudication on the factual aspects, became imminent, and such an exercise cannot be done in a writ proceedings. [para 25]
- Petition dismissed: MADRAS HIGH COURT |
