Madras High Court
M/S. Witthal International Private ... vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Customs on 25 January, 2019
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 25.01.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P.(MD)No.452 of 2019
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.399 of 2019
M/s. Witthal International Private Limited.,
represented by its Marketing Director,
Suresh Kumar Nalappa @ Vijayendra,
10,Raeburn Park,
No.02-08, Singapore-088702. ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Assistant Commissioner of Customs,
Custom House,
Harbour Estate,
Tuticorin,
Tamil Nadu.
2.M/s.Maersk Line India Pvt Ltd;,
Urmi Estate, Tower A,
95,Ganpatrao Kadam Marg,
Lower Parel,
Mumbai-400 013.
3.M/s. Jayadev Industries,
31, Bhojrajpara
Gondal-360 311
Gujarat.
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
4.M/s.JD Cashews,
Chinnapurangani,
Kadampuliyur,
Panruti Taluk,
Cuddalore District,
Tamilnadu – 607 103. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first and second
respondents to change the name of the consignee from third
respondent to the fourth respondent in the Manifest and other
documents and to release petitioner's Raw Cashew nuts under Bill
of Lading Numbers MAEU 965605525 and MAEU 57825541 to the
fourth respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.L.Shaji Chellan
For R1 : Mr.B.Vijaya Karthikeyan
Standing Counsel
For R2 : Mr.J.Anandhakumar
For R3 : No appearance
For R4 : Mr.S.M.Mohan Gandhi
ORDER
The writ petitioner is a company that is based in Singapore. They are engaged in import and export of agricultural commodities. The third respondent herein appears to have placed an order for supply of a dry raw cashew nuts. In terms of the said purchase http://www.judis.nic.in 3 order, the petitioner arranged the import of good into India from Ivory Coast. The goods were shipped from Ivory Coast and were transported to India. In the meanwhile, the petitioner realized that the third respondent is a bogus company and that the documents submitted by the third respondent are fake. Therefore, the writ petitioner wanted to cancel the entire transaction. Since the goods by then were had reached Colombo, the writ petitioner decided to change the destination from Gujarat to Tuticorin. The petitioner entered into a fresh contract with the fourth respondent herein. The goods reached Tuticorin port. The carrier is the second respondent herein. Though in all the other documents, the name of the fourth respondent herein had been substituted in the place of the third respondent, however in the “Import General Manifest” the name of the third respondent continued to be shown. As a result, the goods could not be cleared and they continued to be remain in the Tuticorin Port itself. The petitioner is paying huge demurrage charges. Therefore, the situation necessitated filing of this writ petition.
2.Heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent. The http://www.judis.nic.in 4 respondents 2 and 4 are also represented by their learned counsel. Though, the third respondent has been served and their name is printed in the cause list, there is no appearance on the side of the third respondent.
3.The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the case on hand is governed by Circular No.14/17-Customs dated 11.04.2017. He further pointed out that in such cases, the responsibility of amendment in the IGM rests solely with the Shipping Line/ Agent as they file IGM with Customs under Section 30 of Customs Act, 1962. Clause-4 of the said circular reads as under:
“4. The responsibility of amendment in the IGM rests solely with the Shipping Line / Agent, as they file IGM with Customs under Section 30 of Customs Act, 1962. It is therefore, clarified that the fine / penalty imposed, if any, upon adjudication in such cases, shall be payable by the Shipping Line only or such other person as specified. No fine / penalty is required to be imposed on the consignee or others. No request for any amendment in the IGM from Custom Broker / Importer will be entertained.” http://www.judis.nic.in 5 As rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent, the procedure stipulated in the said circular cannot be bye-passed.
4.In these circumstances, taking note of the special facts obtaining in this case, this Court directs the second respondent to forthwith apply for amendment in the IGM and other documents. The writ petitioner will bear the cost and other financial implications that may arise out of this amendment. Immediately upon filing of such amendment application by the second respondent, the first respondent or any other competent authority shall forthwith allow the same. After completion of all other formalities, the goods shall be released by the first respondent. Though this Court does not indicate any specific outer time limit, the first respondent is directed to fast track the formalities.
5.Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
25.01.2019
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
pnn
http://www.judis.nic.in
6
Note: (i) Issue order copy on 25.01.2019
(ii)Mr.Anandha Kumar, learned counsel represented for the second respondent. It appears that he has not filed Vakalat. However, a copy shall be issued to him.
pnn To The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Custom House, Harbour Estate, Tuticorin, Tamil Nadu.
http://www.judis.nic.in 7 G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
pnn W.P.(MD)No.452 of 2019 and W.M.P.(MD)No.399 of 2019 25.01.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in