Hyundai Merchant Marine Compay ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2004 Latest Caselaw 93 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. Petitioners by this writ petition seek a writ of mandamus for release of 12 containers belonging to petitioner No. 1. Further writ of certiorari is sought for quashing any decision of respondent No. 2 and 3 confiscating the containers.

2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are:-

(i) That 12 containers containing used garbage processing machinery weighing about 1,74,964 Kgs. was imported by respondent No. 4 M/s Renovo Energy Ltd. The consignment imported was not being cleared by the importer respondent No. 4. It was learnt from respondent No. 2, Commissioner of Customs, ICD, that SIIB investigations were going on in respect of goods imported.

(ii) The case of the petitioners is that from the end of December,1998 respondent No. 4 has failed to clear the goods. Petitioner No. 2 who happens to be the agent of petitioner No. 1 has been repeatedly seeking that the imported consignment be de-stuffed from the containers so that containers are released to them, but to no avail.

Further grievance of the petitioner is that though respondent No. 3, Container Corporation of India Ltd., informed respondent No. 4 that if the goods are not cleared on payment of custom duty and other charges the goods would be liable to be sold by public auction, yet public auction was not held.

(iii)Requests were made to all the concerned authorities including the Deputy Commissioner, SIIB for release of the containers but to no avail.

(iv) On 5.8.2002, Deputy Commissioner, SIIB reiterated that they had no objection to handing over the empty containers to the petitioners. Petitioners have been following up with respondent No. 2 for release of the containers but in vain.

(v) A legal notice was also given calling upon the respondents to release the containers in question but no response has been forthcoming. The Assistant Commissioner, SIIB informed the petitioners vide letter dated 24.7.2003 that respondent No. 4 has abandoned the imported goods hence the process of valuation was going on. The grievance of the petitioner is that they are incurring revenue loss by the prolonged detention of the containers.

3. Notice was directed to be issued on 26.8.2003. Time for filing the counter was taken vide orders dated 21.11.2003. Respondents were directed to conduct the auction of the goods contained in the containers so that the same could be released.

4. As the issue of non-release of containers containing the goods which had been abandoned or which were pending adjudication or which were the subject matter of adjudication before the custom authorities, was cropping up in a number of cases, a direction was issued to the Commissioner of Customs, Inland Container Depot (ICD) Tugalakabad, New Delhi as well as to the Chief General manager, Inland Container Depot, Tugalakabad, New Delhi, to be present in Court.

5.Container Corporation of India had been repeatedly taking the plea that it has no arrangement or space to keep/ store the goods, which may be de-stuffed from the containers. In the absence of space in their warehouse, they were not in a position to release the containers after de-stuffing/ de-canting. Custom Authorities, were not making any arrangements for storing of such goods and have been asking the Corporation to release the containers after de-stuffing and decanting, which it is unable to do in the absence of storage space for goods pending auction.

6. Pursuant to the orders passed on 16.1.2004, Mr. Sahib Singh, Commissioner of Customs, ICD and Mr. B.N. Shukla, Chief General Manager, Northern Region of respondent No. 3 were present. Mr. Sahib Singh and Mr. Shukla were heard in addition to the submissions made by Mr. Maninder Singh, Standing Counsel, Union of India and Mr. R.K. Joshi for respondent No. 3. After hearing counsel for the parties as also Mr. Sahib Singh, Commissioner of Customs, ICD and Mr. Shukla, Chief General Manager, Northern Region, respondent No. 3, following procedure and time frame commends to the Court:-

(i) In case the imported goods are not cleared within 30 days of their import and are not the subject matter of any adjudication or investigation being carried out, it shall be assumed that the same have been abandoned. In case of abandoned goods, the Concor i.e. Container Corporation of India Ltd. shall make an application for their disposal by auction. It shall also be open to the owner of the containers to make an application in case directions for disposal of the goods are not issued suo-moto by custom authorities or on the application of the Container Corporation of India.

(ii) The custom authorities within 30 days of receiving a request for auction of the abandoned goods shall authorise their auction unless the goods are required for investigation/ adjudication or for other purposes for which a speaking order would be passed. Upon the custom authorities authorising the auction of the goods, the Container Corporation of India within a period of 60 days of the authorisation arrange for the public auction. In the event goods are not sold in the first auction, then an additional period of 60 days would be available to the Container Corporation of India for carrying out the second and third auction. For carrying out auction, compliance would also be made with Sections 144 and 145 of the Customs Act. The sale proceeds of the auction would be distributed in terms of Section 150 of Customs Act, 1962.

The above procedure is accepted by the respondents who would duly comply with the same. As far as present writ petition is concerned, the auction for the goods was scheduled for 23.1.2004 and no further orders are called for. The writ petition stands disposed.