Case law

Gujarat High Court · 12 Jan 2022

Green Gold Timbers Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director Akhilesh Manglik vs Commissioner Of Customs

Legal principle

A Customs Cargo Service Provider, as defined in Regulation 2(1)(b) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009, is not entitled in law to charge any rent or demurrage on goods seized or detained or confiscated by the Superintendent of Customs, Appraiser, Inspector of Customs, Preventive Officer or Examining Officer, as mandated by Regulation 6(1)(l).

Court decision

The writ-application succeeded and was allowed. The Court held that respondent no.3, as a customs cargo service provider defined in Regulation 2(1)(b) of the 2009 Regulations, is not entitled in law to charge any rent or demurrage on goods seized or detained or confiscated by the Superintendent of Customs or other referred authorities, and directed respondent no.3 to refund the Rs.7,64,934/- recovered towards demurrage within four weeks of receipt of the writ, while leaving it free to pursue any other contractual dues before the appropriate forum. The extract does not state any refund direction against respondent no.2 in respect of the Rs.17,51,964/- detention charges.

Facts

Green Gold Timbers Pvt. Ltd., an importer, moved the Gujarat High Court under Article 226 seeking refund of Rs.25,16,898/-, comprising detention charges of Rs.17,51,964/- imposed by respondent no.2 and ground rent/demurrage of Rs.7,64,934/- recovered by respondent no.3, a customs cargo service provider, in respect of its imported goods. The petitioner contended the charges were unjust and illegal in terms of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009, and sought refund with interest. The extract does not specify the nature of the goods or the exact period of detention in the Gujarat matter (the detention period of 14.08.2018 to 06.02.2019 recited in the judgment relates to the facts of the quoted Bombay case, Sahaj Impex).

Key provisions