[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Santa Monica Farm Produce Private ... vs Union Of India on 18 March, 2026
Author: G. S. Kulkarni
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
Digitally
signed by
PRAJAKTA
PRAJAKTA SAGAR
VARTAK
905-WPL 9642-26.DOC
SAGAR
VARTAK Date:
2026.03.18
15:21:01
+0530
Prajakta Vartak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L.) NO. 9642 OF 2026
Santa Monica Farm Produce Private Limited ...Petitioner
Vs
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents
_________
Mr. Mohan Jayakar with Mr. Yash Pandya, Mr. Atharva Gade and Mr. Rishi
Patacha i/b. Jayakar and Partners for Petitioner.
Mr. Satyaprakash Sharma with Mr. Abhishek Mishra for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mr. Jitendra B. Mishra with Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Mr. Umesh Gupta and Mr.
Rupesh Dubey for Respondent No.4 (DRI).
__________
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
AARTI SATHE, JJ.
DATE: 18 MARCH 2026.
P.C.
1. We have heard Mr. Jayakar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sharma,
learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 3, and Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for
respondent no.4. We are informed that respondent no.5, through its Indian agent
M/s. Wan Hai Lines (India) Pvt. Ltd., having its office at A-102 & 103, The
Qube, near the International Airport, Marol Village, Andheri East, Mumbai - 400
059, has refused to accept service of the present proceedings. However, notice
has been issued by e-mail to respondent no.5, intimating respondent no.5 of
today's hearing.
2. Mr. Jayakar, at the outset, has drawn our attention to the order dated 05
February 2026 passed by this Court on Writ Petition (L.) No. 42323 of 2025
filed by the petitioner, whereby the Court permitted the release of the goods in
18 March 2026
905-WPL 9642-26.DOC
question, described as in-shell walnuts imported by the petitioner from the USA,
subject to the furnishing of a bond in terms of the following order:-
"ORDER
(i) The petitioner is entitled to provisional release of the goods
under order dated 23 January 2026, only on furnishing a bond as
directed in the said order.
(ii) All contentions of the respondents in regard to any further
investigation and any other steps to be taken in that regard, are expressly
kept open.
(iii) The respondents shall release the goods to the petitioner within a
period of three days from today.
(iv) As there was no justification for the respondent to detain the
goods, in the facts of the present case, we direct the respondents to issue
a certificate of waiver of demurrage to the petitioner."
3. Learned counsel for the Customs as also learned counsel appearing for
respondent no.4/DRI fairly submit that the shipping line ought to have released
the goods as directed by this Court, more particularly when the Certificate of
Waiver of Demurrage dated 16 February 2026 having already been issued.
4. Mr. Jayakar would hence submit that there is no warrant for the shipping
line-respondent no.5 to withhold or detain the goods, which would go contrary to
the directions of this Court and/or nullify the orders passed by this Court. He
further submits that the shipping line has no jurisdiction to resort to such action
as it would amount to a gross illegality to detain the goods, when the certificate of
waiver of demurrage has already been submitted. In supporting such submission,
Mr. Jayakar has also relied on the decision of this Court in Supreme Industries
Ltd. (No.2) v/s. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs and Others 1 to
submit that, in such proceedings, one of the reliefs sought was the clearance of the
petitioner's imported goods for home consumption by taking appropriate action
1 2021SCC OnLine Bom 324
18 March 2026
905-WPL 9642-26.DOC
against the shipping line (respondent nos.4 and 5 therein). A detention-cum-
demurrage certificate was issued in the said case, which was held to be binding on
the shipping line. The following observations were made by the Court in such
context:-
"87. In the light of the above, we have no hesitation to hold that
objection of respondent No.4 is not legally tenable. The detention cum
demurrage waiver certificate dated 16th November, 2020 has been
validly issued as it can be traced to Regulation 10(1)(l) of the 2018
Regulations and under Regulation 10(1)(m) thereof, respondent No.4
i.e., the shipping line is under a legal obligation to comply with the
certificate. Thus, the detention cum demurrage certificate dated 16th
November, 2020 is binding on respondent No.4. That apart, holding on
to the goods of the petitioner by respondent No.4 post the detention
cum demurrage waiver certificate dated 16th November, 2020 and
levying detention charges thereafter would be illegal and thus unlawful."
5. In our opinion, prima facie, there is much substance in what has been
contended by Mr. Jayakar relying on the decision in Supreme Industries Ltd.
(No.2) v/s. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs and Others (supra), as
the shipping line would, therefore, be under an obligation to comply with the
certificate and permit the petitioner to clear the goods, as directed by the order
passed by this Court (supra). Respondent no. 5 withholding the petitioner's goods
after the issuance of the certificate would thus be illegal when in pursuance of the
direction of this Court (supra). A copy of the Certificate of Waiver of Demurrage
dated 16 February 2026 issued to the petitioner is annexed at page 64 of the
paper-book.
6. In this view of the matter, we direct respondent no.5 to forthwith release
the goods in question to the petitioner without any further delay.
18 March 2026
905-WPL 9642-26.DOC
7. We list the proceedings for compliance on 23 March 2026.
8. Parties to act on authenticated copy of this order.
(AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
18 March 2026
