Page 210 - ELT_1st September 2020_Vol 373_Part 5

648 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

83. In fact, such certificate need not be confined to the circumstances
specified in Public Notice No. 111 of 1985, dated 29-7-1985 of the Bombay Cus-
tom House alone. It can be issued in appropriate case to cover the circumstances
specified in the Policy of the Airport Authority as per Regulation 6 of the Airport
Authority of India (Storage and Processing of Cargo, Courier and Express Goods
and Postal Mail) Regulations, 2003 as was noted in Trip Communication Pvt. Ltd.
(cited supra) by the Delhi High Court.
84. As far as the present case is concerned, since none of the circum-
stances noted by the Delhi High Court in Trip Communication Private Limited v.
Union of India are attracted, the question of the 1st respondent issuing such certif-
icate to the petitioner for the petitioner to claim waiver does not arise. Therefore,
to that extent the 1st respondent was justified in denying “Detention Certificate”
to the petitioner.
85. Though, it is not the case of the abuse by the officers of the Cus-
toms, there are sufficient indications to show that there was a complete disrup-
tion of service at the Air Cargo Complex during the relevant period due to al-
leged arrest of the officers. In absence of the officers to receive the transshipment
application, there could have been total disruption and no application was re-
ceived which perhaps may have led to the delay.
86. If there were no proper officers or there were only few officers to
handle the workload due to alleged arrest and the delay in receiving the trans-
shipment application for being processed by the 1st respondent should not be at
the cost of the petitioner. If indeed there was a complete breakdown due to al-
leged arrest and resulted in disruption of the operations at the Air Cargo Com-
plex, the petitioner should be compensated as such delay cannot be attributed by
the petitioner. This would require proper facts being established by the petition-
er.
87. Therefore, this aspect would require proper verification. Issue is
therefore left open for the petitioner to establish that Customs Department is lia-
ble to compensate the petitioner in the light of the observation of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Mumbai Port Trust v. Shri Lakshmi Steels, 2017 (352) E.L.T. 401
(S.C.) : (2018) 14 SCC 317.
88. The petitioner may therefore establish before the 1st respondent
that there was total or near total disruption of work due to alleged arrest of the
customs officers and therefore, there was delay in receiving and processing of
transshipment application and therefore the petitioner is entitled to compensa-
tion.
89. The 1st respondent also will have all the official information and
details on this aspect. I am therefore inclined to remit the case back to the 1st re-
spondent to pass appropriate orders after taking all the factors into account. The
petitioner may independently substantiate the allegations before the 1st re-
spondent with necessary documents.
90. The 1st respondent may clearly state whether indeed any of its of-
ficers stationed at the Air Cargo Complex for the purpose of processing the
transshipment application were arrested as was claimed by the petitioner and
whether such arrest resulted in disruption of operation at the Air Cargo Com-
plex. If so, the petitioner shall be compensated.

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st September 2020  210