INDIAN CHRISTION OUTREACH MINISTRIES Vs. COMMR. OF CUS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to ensure compliance by the 2nd respondent of the directions issued by the appellate authority vide order -in -appeal in C. Cus II No. 168/2015, dated 19 -2 -2015 read with Regulation 6(1) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009, within a reasonable time frame. The petitioner had filed Bill of Entry dated 4 -4 -2013 for import and clearance of goods declared as Miscellaneous Medical Equipments, Dental Equipments, Medical items such as Syringes, Plastic tubes, saline/fluid metal stand, etc. Based on the declaration made by the petitioner, the goods were subjected to first check examination both by the Assistant Drug Controller and also by a Chartered Engineer. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, after adjudication, passed an order dated 21 -11 -2013, by which, goods to the value of Rs. 5,220/ - were confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. In addition, the value for other medical equipments were enhanced with a further imposition of Redemption fine of Rs. 1,50,000/ - and penalty of Rs. 50,000/ -. Aggrieved over the said order dated 21 -11 -2013, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), who vide order dated 31 -12 -2013 reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 50,000/ - and penalty to Rs. 10,000/ - with a further direction to the original adjudicating authority to issue necessary detention and demurrage waiver certificate as per law. Accordingly, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, had issued the waiver certificate dated 23 -1 -2015 directing the 2nd respondent to waive the detention/storage charges up to 28 -1 -2015 excluding the period 15 -5 -2014 to 27 -8 -2014. Since, waiver for demurrage and detention charges was not given upto the actual clearance of the goods, an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), who by order dated 19 -2 -2015, directed the Assistant Commissioner to give waiver of demurrage and detention charges for the entire period till the goods are actually cleared. Despite the same, the 2nd respondent had not granted the waiver of detention and storage charges. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that with regard to waiver of demurrage charges, as claimed by the petitioner, even the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Group 6) on 6 -8 -2015, wrote a letter to the 2nd respondent recommending wavier upto 14 -8 -2015 and since there was no response, a complaint was also lodged by the petitioner on 11 -8 -2015 to the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai -VIII, Commissionerate. Thereupon, again nothing moved on, the petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) ON considering the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court feels it appropriate that the letter dated 6 -8 -2015 of the 1st respondent followed by a complaint of the petitioner dated 11 -8 -2015 should be considered by the 2nd respondent and orders passed within a reasonable time.