Page 163 - ELT_1st September 2020_Vol 373_Part 5

2020 ] VINA ONE STEEL MANUFACTURING CORPORATION v. COMMR. OF CUS., COCHIN 601

tainers covered by the bill of ladings dated 30-8-2019 and 15-9-2019, to a more
economical storage. The further permission is to sell the cargo to an interested
buyer and dispose of to prevent the further container retention charges and as
well as the container tariff.
6. Mr. Sreelal. N. Warrier, Learned Counsel representing the 1st re-
spondent submits that the writ petition is bereft of any cause of action as none of
the situations as projected in the writ petition calling upon the petitioner to pay
the cargo retention charges or container tariff has been raised, nor the conditions
of insurance of the freight purported to have been executed between the peti-
tioner and the insurance company, have been placed on record. The procedure as
envisaged under Section 46 of the Customs Act is self explanatory and do not
require any interpretation for the reason that there would have been a force in
the submission of Mr. Aswin Gopakumar had the 2nd respondent not submitted
the bill of entries. Even if the situation as attempted to made in the petition has
been taken care of the various provisions of the Act including Section 48 permit-
ting the Custom Department to sell the goods in open auction to recover the de-
tention and other charges in accordance with law and urges this Court for dis-
missal of this writ petition.
7. Mr. Manu Radhakrishanan, the Learned Counsel appearing for the
3rd respondent submits that his clients had let out the container consisting of the
consignment of 1500 metric tonnes of steel and it would be bound by the contract
between his clients and the petitioner. The submission of the statement of ac-
count of the tariff of the containers cannot be the actual demand it is only for fa-
cilitation of the petitioner, nothing beyond.
8. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties, perused the paper
book and I am of the view that there is no force and merit in the submission of
Mr. Aswin Gopakumar on account of the following reasons :
(I) This Court has been prevented of the contract if any arrived at be-
tween the petitioner and the insurance company as the normal
transaction business as well as ascertainable from the terms and
conditions of the contract (Ext. Pl), the goods are always against the
insurance of the freight i.e. Cost Insurance Freight.
(II) It is still a mystery whether the petitioner has launched claim with
the insurance company and claiming the amount due or not, I
would not be further commenting on this as it may not have devas-
tating effect on the purported claim of the petitioner vis-à-vis the in-
surance company.
(III) In view of the situation as explained above, the remedy for the peti-
tioner to recover the cost if permissible in law in the absence of any
insurance i.e. in the absence of insurance cover can be resorted to by
invoking the arbitration clause.
(IV) No doubt importer after the amendment as referred to above,
would include the owner the title of the goods in such circumstanc-
es cannot prevent the exporter or the consignor to lose the claim by
submitting the bill of entries, but the same cannot be replaced as
sought to be done as it has already been submitted by the respond-
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st September 2020  163