Page 228 - ELT_1st September 2020_Vol 373_Part 5

666 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

2020 (373) E.L.T. 666 (Del.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
D.N. Patel, CJ. and C. Hari Shankar, J.
MATE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.
Versus
COMMR. OF CUS., INLAND CONTAINER DEPOT
W.P. (C) No. 1909 of 2020, decided on 19-2-2020
Demurrage charges - Waiver of - Customs Authorities cannot direct
waiver of demurrage, which can only be done by custodian - Merely because
Customs Authority expends a reasonable time in dispensation of their sover-
eign functions of search, seizure and investigation, cannot lead to transference
of liability to pay demurrage, to Customs Authorities - Customs Authorities
cannot be directed to pay or remit godown and demurrage charges. [paras 22,
23]
Writ jurisdiction - Maintainability - Existence of alternative remedy -
Refund of excess duty - No refund application filed - Petitioner cannot cir-
cumvent statutory provisions prescribed under Section 27 of Customs Act,
1962 by invoking writ jurisdiction - Relief not granted - Article 226 of Consti-
tution of India. [1985 (19) E.L.T. 22 (S.C.) relied on]. [para 24]
Petition dismissed
CASES CITED
Assistant Collector v. Dunlop India Ltd. — 1985 (19) E.L.T. 22 (S.C.) — Relied on ....................... [Para 25]
Global Impex v. Manager, CELBI Import Shed — MANU/DE/4351/2019 — Relied on ..... [Paras 20, 22]
DEPARTMENTAL CLARIFICATION CITED
C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 392/25/98, dated 19-5-1998 ......................................................................... [Para 8]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Rajat Gaur, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
Shri Pramod Bahuguna, Advocate, for the Respond-
ent.
[Judgment per : D.N. Patel, CJ. (Oral)]. - This writ petition has been pre-
ferred for the refund of demurrage charges paid by this petitioner-importer of
the goods.
2. The demurrage paid by this petitioner is Rs. 8,36,027/- to Respond-
ent No. 4, Container Corporation of India Ltd. (hereinafter, ‘CCIL’).
3. It is alleged by the petitioner that the demurrages were paid by the
petitioner for no fault of the petitioner.
4. Similarly, this petitioner is also in search of refund of excess Customs
duty which is paid at Rs. 2,03,987/-, whereas no such refund application has
been preferred by the petitioner prior to this writ.
5. At this juncture, a brief recapitulation of facts is necessary.
6. The petitioner company, M/s. Mate (India) Pvt. Ltd., imported ferti-
lizers for agriculture, from a manufacturer based in Turkey, vide a commercial
invoice dated 22nd February, 2019. The goods reached the Inland Container De-
pot, Tuglakabad, Delhi on the 17th April, 2019, the bill of entry, for which, was
filed on 18th April, 2019.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st September 2020  228