Dismissed

Hyundai Mercahnt Marine India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India

Madras HC2 Jul 2021WP/33129/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed writ petitions seeking the release of detained containers and a declaration of illegal detention. The Court held that statutory compliance and contractual disputes require adjudication by competent authorities before the high court can intervene.

What did the court decide?

Both writ petitions were disposed of; no relief granted. Petitioner directed to approach competent authorities.

Hyundai Mercahnt Marine India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India — Customs and Excise | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 02.07.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M. SUBRAMANIAM

¶5

W.P.Nos.33129 & 33131 of 2018 and W.M.P.Nos.38421 & 38424 of 2018

¶6

Hyundai Merchant Marine India Pvt. Ltd., A company incorporated under the Companies Act of 1956 having registered office at No.318, Old No.809, Poonamallee High Road, Ega Trade Centre, 3^rd Floor, Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010. ... Petitioner in both writ petitions Vs. 1.Union of India Through the Department of Revenue & Central Board of Excise and Customs, North Block, Customs House, Chennai – 600 001.

¶7

2.Continental Warehousing Corporation (NhavaSeva) Ltd., No.114, Nallur Village, Thiruvallur High Road, Redhills, Chennai – 600 052.

¶8

3.Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Chennai IV, Customs House 60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 001. ... Respondents in both writ petitions

¶9

Prayer in W.P.No.33129 of 2018 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith release and return to the petitioner's containers bearing Nos.TCNU6506331, TEMU7417389 and CAXU6768860 and pay such compensation towards the container idling charges as may seem appropriate to this Honourable Court upto the date of release of the said containers.

¶10

Prayer in W.P.No.33131 of 2018 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Declaration declaring the conduct of the respondents https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ detaining of petitioner's container bearing Nos.TCNU6506331,

¶11

TEMU7417389 and CAXU6768860 as contrary to the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and hence illegal and further hold that the respondents are not entitled to claim or demand any charges from the petitioner with respect to the aforesaid containers.

¶12

in both writ petitions

¶13

W.P.No.33129 of 2018 :

¶14

The relief sought for in W.P.No.33129 of 2018 is to direct the respondent to forthwith release and return the petitioner's containers bearing Nos.TCNU6506331, TEMU7417389 and CAXU6768860 and pay such compensation towards the container idling charges.

¶15

2.The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner states that they are the agent of Hyundai Merchant Marine Company Limited, Seoul (Korea), which carries on business as container owners and carriers at Korea. The petitioner is entrusted with the obligation to receive and return the containers to the Principal company after the discharge of the cargo.

¶16

3.The prime contention of the petitioner is that, certain containers imported are illegally detained by the respondents, and in spite of their request, the respondents have not taken any steps to release the containers as specified. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.

¶17

4.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2^nd respondent/Customs Cargo Service Provider made a submission that the writ petition itself is not maintainable. Various procedures are contemplated for the purpose of release of containers imported and therefore, the petitioner has to produce all relevant documents and comply with the conditions stipulated for the release of the containers as sought for in the present writ petition. It is contended that, on various reasons, the containers are lying under the control of the 2^nd https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent. If at all any dispute prevails with the Customs

¶18

Department, the same is also to be sorted out and all necessary actions are to be taken in this regard. This apart, such disputes are of civil nature and the 2^nd respondent/Customs Cargo Service Provider is a private company and with reference to the agreement between the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent, the disputes are to be resolved before the competent forum and no writ petition can be entertained in this regard.

¶19

5.This Court is of the considered opinion that imports and exports are to be done by following the procedures contemplated and by complying with the mandatory requirements. The relief as such sought for in the present writ petition to direct the respondents to forthwith release and return the containers, itself is absurd. Such a relief requires adjudication in view of the fact that there are statutory requirements and compliance of the terms and conditions with the Customs Cargo Service Provider and other aspects of the matter. Without adjudicating all those factors, the High Court cannot issue a writ granting the relief in the writ petition filed. When disputed facts are raised between the parties, the same cannot be entertained and the High Court cannot conduct a roving enquiry with reference to the dispute, which is to be resolved with reference to the documents and evidence produced before the competent authorities.

¶20

6.This being the principles to be followed, the relief as such sought for in the present writ petition cannot be granted and the petitioner is at liberty to approach the competent authority of the respondents or before the competent forum for the purpose of adjudication of disputes and redressal of grievances.

¶21

7.With these observations, the writ petition in W.P.No.33129 of 2018 stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶22

W.P.No.33131 of 2018 :

¶23

8.This writ petition is filed by the very same petitioner, namely, Hyundai Merchant Marine India Private Limited, and the relief sought for is to declare the conduct of the respondent detaining the petitioner's containers, as illegal.

¶24

9.In view of the observations made in W.P.No.33129 of 2018, no further consideration is required to the grounds raised. The petitioner has to comply with the statutory requirements, including the payment of charges to be paid as per the terms and conditions of the contract or under the Statute. However, for grant of any such declaration as sought for, elaborate adjudication is required. The High Court cannot entertain any such adjudication which is to be done https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ with reference to the documents and evidence, and therefore,

¶25

the petitioner is at liberty to approach the competent authorities for adjudication of issues or before the competent forum in the manner known to law.

¶26

10.With these observations, the writ petition in W.P.No.33131 of 2018 stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

Assistant Registrar(CS-VII)

¶29

//True copy//

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

mkn

¶32

¶33

1.The Department of Revenue & Central Board of Excise and Customs, Union of India, North Block, Customs House, Chennai – 600 001. 2.The Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Chennai IV, Customs House 60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 001. +2ccs to Mrs.R.Hemalatha, Advocate SR.No.31116

¶34

W.P.Nos.33129 & 33131 of 2018

¶35

SKY(CO) GMY(06/08/2021)

¶36

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Hyundai Mercahnt Marine India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hyundai Mercahnt Marine India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Christian Medical College Vs State of Tamilnadu

R.Sethuraman, Vs the Secretary

R.Sethuraman, Vs the Secretary

Dr.Sajan Hegde Vs Assistant Commissioner of

Dr.Sajan Hegde Vs Assistant Commissioner of

Dr.Sajan Hegde Vs Assistant Commissioner of