Maintainability of writ of mandamus against refusal by Customs Authorities.

Ramanujam J.

The appellants herein imported steel plates under an import licence dated 21-6-1971 from Japan and United Kingdom. On importation of the goods, the necessary bills of entry were filed. But the goods were detained by the Customs authorities for customs purposes and after some delay, the goods were allowed to be cleared by the appellants. For the period during which the goods were detained by the customs authorities, the petitioners sought the issue of detention certificate so as to enable them to claim the concessional rate of demurrage from the Port Trust authorities. The customs authorities gave detention certificates in respect of certain period but refused to give such a detention certificate for other periods on the ground that the detention of the goods during that period was due to the fault of the appellants' clearing agents and that therefore the detention certificate could not be issued for that period. The appellants thereafter moved this court for the issue of a Writ in the nature of mandamus directing the first respondent, the Assistant Collector of Customs, to issue the detention certificate with respect of the consignment for the period for which the certificate was refused by the Customs authorities, on the ground that the detention of the consignment during that period was not due to the default committed by the appellants or their clearing agent. Though the said writ petition was admitted and rule nisi was issued, Koshal J. before whom the matter came up for final disposal dismissed the same following a Division Bench decision of this court inCollector of Customsv.M.P. Works, 1977 AIR(Mad) 61, which had held that there is no statutory or other public duty cast on the Customs authorities to issue a detention certificate. The decision of Koshal J. has been challenged in this writ appeal.

2.The appellants even at the admission stage questioned the correctness of the Bench decision above referred to, and contended that the said decision required a reconsideration. A Division Bench of this court which admitted the writ appeal wasprima facieinclined to take the view that the Bench decision of this court inCollector of CustomsvM.P. Works, 1977 AIR(Mad) 61, that there is no public or statutory duty cast on the Customs authorities to issue the detention certificate, may require reconsideration. It is in that view that the writ appeal has been posted before us and the order of reference is as follows :-

"Koshal J. as a single Judge of this court was naturally bound by a pronouncement made by a Division Bench of this court, consisting of Kailasam, Offg. C.J. and Balasubrahmanyan J. in the case reported inCollector of Customsv.M.P. Works, 1977 AIR(Mad) 61. We areprima facieof the view that this Division Bench decision requires reconsideration in public interest. Whilst, therefore, admitting this writ appeal, we direct that this appeal be posted before a Full Bench." *

Thus, the main question to be considered by us in this appeal is whether a mandamus could be issued to the Customs authorities to issue a detention certificate when the consignment is detained for customs purposes, and whether the Customs authorities are under a legal duty to issue the detention certificate which can be enforced by a Writ of mandamus.

3.The appellants had imported certain consignments of steel plates under a licence granted to them. The consignments were detained for customs purposes for a certain period. For a portion of the period detention certificates were in fact issued and for the rest of the period, the said certificate was refused on the ground that the detention of the consignment during that period was due to the fault of the appellants and their clearing agents. The claim of the Customs authorities that the detention during the relevant period was due to the fault of the appellants or their clearing agents have not been gone into by the learned single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition since the writ pe