The main legal point established in the judgment is that a claim for waiver of demurrage and detention charges must be made within the specified time frame, and the maximum waiver period is limited by the relevant regulations.

JUDGMENT

(Prayers: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to cause release of the goods imported under Bill of Entry No.6133972, dated 05.11.2021 without levy of detention, demurrage and container storage charges waived vide detention certificate issued by the office of the third respondent in F.No.S.Misc.343/2021-SIIB, dated 17.01.2022 from the date of the detention of the goods till their actual release.

Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents herein to cause release of the goods imported under Bill of Entry No.5998252, dated 26.10.2021 without levy of detention, demurrage and container storage charges waived vide detention certificate issued by the office of the third respondent in F.No.S.Misc.343/2021-SIIB, dated 17.01.2022 from the date of the detention of the goods till their actual release.)

1. Since both the writ petitions were filed by the same petitioner and the issue arises out of these writ petitions is one and the same, these writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioner is a proprietary concern which has been given the import export license by the Office of the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade, Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry. To conduct the local business, the petitioner was given GST Registration also under the GST Act. Since the petitioner entity deals with the food items, a license in terms of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 has also been issued by the appropriate Authority under the said Act. The petitioner entity has been conducting business with due diligence and in compliance with the statutory obligations cast on it.

3. The petitioner during his business had placed an order to import wet dates to the extent of 25585 Kgs to one M/s. Silver Town Food Stuff Trading LLC at Dubai, UAE and accordingly, those food stuff having been packed in 850 packages covered under invoice, dated 13.10.2021 were despatched under Bill of Lading, dated 26.10.2021. The invoice value of the goods was Rs.9,74,099.20/-. The petitioner self-assessed the duty at Rs.3,56,910/-.

4. The said goods on reaching the Chennai Port, bill of entry was submitted by the petitioner, dated 05.11.2021 in Bill of Entry No.6133972.

5. Like that, yet another consignment also was imported by the petitioner with the same goods, i.e., wet dates in Bill of Entry No.5998252, dated 26.10.2021.

6. These goods on reaching the Chennai Port, the customs authorities, on the basis of an intelligence information, had conducted detailed examinations of the cargo on 25.11.2021. On such examination, it was found that, the container in which the goods arrived were containing the goods, i.e., walnuts weighing 15,074 kgs besides the declared consignment of wet dates. Subsequently, the goods were seized on the allegation that, there has been a mis-declaration of the description of goods and and also quantity.

7. A statement in this regard was recorded from the petitioner under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 (in short "the Act"), in which, allegedly the petitioner had admitted the goods in question, namely walnuts were despatched by one Anil Kumar Jain through the supplier along with export consignments of wet dates in order to make certain gains financially.

8. Further on investigation, the petitioner entity having admitted the fault of mis-declaration remitted the applicable customs duty besides the redemption fine as well as the penalty to the extent of Rs.65 lakhs under TR-6 Challan, dated 27.01.2021.

9. Having regard to the payment of duty with probable fine and duty of the consignments imported, the petitioner waived issuance of show cause notice and sought for adjudication directly.

10. Thereafter the office of the second respondent took up the matter in adjudication and vide in Order in