Disposed

M/S. Lall Minerals Pvt.Ltd. v. Union of India

Orissa HC15 Dec 2022WP(C)/37266/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa disposed of a writ petition seeking compensation for wrongful detention of a vessel. The Court held that compensation claims involve disputed questions of fact best decided in separate civil proceedings, noting that the petitioner had maintained the detention lacked basis while the respondent contested it.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; compensation prayer noted as matter for separate civil proceedings; grievance remedies kept open.

M/S. Lall Minerals Pvt.Ltd. Vs Union of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.37266 of 2020

¶3

M/s. Lall Minerals Pvt. Ltd. & Another …. Petitioners

¶4

Mr. Kishor Kumar Acharya, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Union of India & Others

¶7

…. Opposite Parties Mr. Radheyshyam Chimanka, Sr. Standing Counsel

¶8

CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE M. S. RAMAN

Order No.

ORDER 15.12.2022

The present writ petition was filed on 22^nd December, 2020 seeking quashing of an order dated 18^th December, 2020 passed by the Inspector, Gopalpur Customs Division, Gopalpur detaining the vessel “MV MBA LIBERTY” under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the ground that the Cargo was declared to have Fe content of below 58%, whereas upon testing it was found to be having Fe content of above 58%.

¶13

On 24^th December, 2020, an interim order was passed by this Court noting that the Petitioners had furnished a Bank Guarantee (BG) to the extent of 35% of the provisional duty and on that basis, a direction was issued for release of the vessel with an undertaking by the Petitioner that in the event any custom duty is leviable after final assessment by following due procedure of law, the same shall be

¶14

Page 1 of 3

¶15

recovered from the Petitioners after adjusting the amount already deposited by way of the BG.

¶16

It appears that pursuant to the above orders, the vessel in question sailed out on 25^th December, 2020 after being detained for a period of nine days.

¶17

On 24^th June, 2021 the Assistant Commissioner, Gopalpur Customs Division finalized the provisional assessment of the relevant shipping bill at ‘NIL’ Duty.

¶18

Learned counsel for the Petitioner now prays that direction should be issued to the Opposite Parties to pay compensation to the Petitioners for wrongful detention of the vessel for nine days and in support of such submission, reliance is placed on the decision in Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar (1983) 4 SCC 141 . In support of the plea that this Court should to continue to entertain the writ petition, reliance is placed on the decision in Worldline Tradex Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Import), 2016 (340) E.L.T. 174 (Del.).

¶19

As regards the aforementioned prayer, the Court is of the view that it involves disputed questions of fact regarding the justification for detention of the vessel by the authorities. This is on account of the fact that the Petitioners have throughout been maintaining that there is no basis for the conclusion that the Fe content of the cargo was not in accordance with the declaration made by the Petitioners. This is of course contested by the Opposite Parties. On the side of the Petitioners, it is pointed out that the provisional assessment order dated 24^th June, 2021 made no reference to any test report on the

¶20

Page 2 of 3

¶21

basis of which the detention of the vessel was ordered in the first place. These contested issues can be best adjudicated in separate civil proceedings where evidence can be led by both parties in support of their respective contentions. Consequently, leaving it open to the Petitioners to seek appropriate remedies in accordance with law for the further grievances that the Petitioners may have, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶22

(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
(M. S. Raman)
Judge
MRS/Laxmikant

¶23

Page 3 of 3

M/S. Lall Minerals Pvt.Ltd. v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Lall Minerals 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dept. of Higher Education, Govt. of Odisha Vs Dr.Jayashree Sarangi

Monoranjan Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Rajkumar Sutar Vs Union of India

M/S.Balgopal Food Products Pvt.Ltd Vs State of Odisha

M/S. M.G.Mohanti Regr. Partnership Firm Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi

M/S.Maakhadi Cashew Industries Vs State of Orissa