Page 196 - ELT_1st September 2020_Vol 373_Part 5

634 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

17. It is submitted that there was a clear inaction by the 1st and 2nd re-
spondents in not facilitating free movement of imported cargo expeditiously by
granting transshipment permission.
18. Since the 4th respondent issued a demand notice dated 8-2-2010
and called upon the petitioner to settle the dues accumulated due to the delay in
transshipment, the petitioner submitted a letter dated 12-2-2010 to the 1st re-
spondent and requested for issue a “Detention Certificate” to recommend waiver
of extra transshipment and demurrage charges incurred since the delay in trans-
shipment was not due to the fault or negligence of the petitioner. The petitioner
has also requested the 3rd respondent to waive the demurrage charges.
19. Since the petitioner was unable to elicit any positive response from
the respondents, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 3317 of 2010 to consider and dis-
pose its representation for issue of “Detention Certificate” and to recommend for
waiver of demurrage charges by the 3rd/4th respondent.
20. Meanwhile, by the impugned communication/order dated 10-3-
2010, the 1st respondent rejected the request of the petitioner for issue of “Deten-
tion Certificate”. Under these circumstances, W.P. No. 3317 of 2010 was with-
drawn and thereafter, the present writ petition was filed.
21. The 3rd respondent vide separate letter dated 19-3-2010 also reject-
ed the request of the petitioner to waiver of demurrage charges on the ground
that the Customs Department had not informed that the consignment was de-
tained by them. The petitioner has not challenged the said order.
22. During the course of the hearing, for the 1st time, the Learned
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the same period, 9 out of 11
Customs officers who were serving at the Chennai Air Cargo Complex and han-
dling transshipment of cargo were arrested and 8 of them were middle level offi-
cials and there was a complete disruption of the activities on account of arrest.
23. It is further submitted that couple of dealers were also arrested who
were allegedly in cohorts with some of the arrested officers who had facilitated
evasion of Customs duty and that the CBI had raided the residence of some of
these officials and recovered a sum of Rs. 17 lakhs of unaccounted cash and 25
lakhs worth jewellery apart from recovery of a sum of Rs. 59,000/- in cash from
the office premises.
24. To this effect the Learned Counsel for the petitioner also filed
newspapers’ clipping to state that there was a complete breakdown of the system
and practically there were no officers available to receive the application and
process the transshipment application by the 1st respondent.
25. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that ma-
jority of the officers stationed at the Airport were also remanded to judicial cus-
tody and therefore neither the transshipment applications were received nor pro-
cessed which resulted in the late clearance of the imported cargo. It is therefore
submitted that the petitioner cannot be saddled with liability.
26. These allegations regarding arrest of the Customs officials of the Air
Cargo were not the basis of the writ petition. These were highlighted for the
Court to take judicial notice of the prevailing ground reality then which had to-
tally crippled and disrupted the transshipment operation.
27. However, in the affidavit filed in support of the present writ
petition, the petitioner has merely stated that the Customs department did not
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st September 2020  196