Page 160 - ELT_1st September 2020_Vol 373_Part 5

598 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

25. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed with the consequen-
tial relief to the petitioner. The 2nd respondent is therefore directed to pay the
rebate of excise duty paid on the exported organic cotton yarn within a period of
45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order together with interest under
Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.

_______

2020 (373) E.L.T. 598 (Ker.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Amit Rawal, J.
VINA ONE STEEL MANUFACTURING CORPORATION
Versus
COMMR. OF CUS., COCHIN
W.P. (C) No. 3489 of 2020 (I), decided on 17-2-2020
Importer - Shipper’s claim as importer - Sustainability when Bill of
Entry already filed by importer on paper - Petitioner shipper of uncleared car-
go of steel pipes pleading that consequent to amendment in definition of im-
porter w.e.f. 31-3-2017, he be allowed to claim goods by filing fresh Bills of
Entry and that Customs Department be directed to ask custodian to waive de-
murrage - HELD : While undoubtedly after amendment aforesaid, importer
would include owner of title of goods but in this case petitioner shipper can-
not be replaced as importer because importer as shown in shipping documents
has already filed Bills of Entry - Further, there is no demand by Customs de-
partment against petitioner to give him cause to invoke claim of being an im-
porter - Any alleged mischief by importer is a matter of arbitration between
two affected parties and shipper is at liberty to launch appropriate proceed-
ings for this - Further, it is also not clear as to whether petitioner has launched
any claim with Insurance Company, it being a CIF consignment - Petitioner’s
reliance on Apex Court judgment in 2017 (348) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), which was main-
ly with regard to importer for purpose of demurrage, cannot be accepted at this
stage as this judgment was not agreed with by another Apex Court judgment
in 2018 (360) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) and matter stands referred to Larger Bench - In view
of above petitioner’s claim not sustainable - Sections 2(26) and 22 of Customs
Act, 1962 - Article 226 of Constitution of India. [para 8]
Petition dismissed
CASES CITED
Chairman, Board of Trustees Cochin Port Trust v. Arebee Star Maritime Agencies Pvt. Ltd.
— 2018 (360) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) — Referred ........................................................................................ [Para 8]
Rasiklal Kantilal & Co. v. Board of Trustee of Port of Bombay — 2017 (348) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)
— Referred ......................................................................................................................................... [Para 5]

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st September 2020  160