Merely passing through Indian port to another country not amount to "import" under Section 2(23) of Customs Act: Madras HC refuses to intervene in Copper Scrap Transhipment [Read Order]
It did not appear that the goods were going to be "imported" into India, as they were merely passing through the customs station.
copper-scrap - Taxscan
copper-scrap - Taxscan
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has held that goods merely transshipping through an Indian port en route to another country do not constitute an "import" under Section 2(23) of the Customs Act, 1962, and refused to intervene in the transhipment of copper scrap.
Mandatory Pre-Deposit under S. 129E of Customs Act Cannot Be Waived Merely Due to Bank Account Freeze: Madras HC [Read Order]
Juan Global Trading, the petitioner, had placed an order with the second respondent , Prime Arc Global LLC, Georgia for the purchase of copper scrap, allegedly at the instance of the third respondent , Nexus Global Trading FZE, UAE. The petitioner claimed to have made payment but alleged that the second respondent was committing fraud by delivering the goods to a different entity in UAE.
The goods, shipped from Georgia, were scheduled for a brief halt at Mundra International Container Terminal in Gujarat before proceeding to UAE. Seeking to prevent the alleged fraud, the petitioner approached the High Court with a writ petition under Article 226, praying for a mandamus to direct the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Mundra (the first respondent) to detain the goods and hand them over to the petitioner.
The core issue before the Court was whether it could exercise jurisdiction and compel the Customs authorities to detain goods that were not being "imported" into India but were merely in transit.
The single bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan noted that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction, as the goods were located in Gujarat, while the petition was filed before the Madurai Bench. The Court then examined Section 54 of the Customs Act, which deals with transhipment, and the definition of "import" under Section 2(23) of the Act, which means "bringing into India from a place outside India".
The bench observed that, from a bare reading, it did not appear that the goods were going to be "imported" into India, as they were merely passing through the customs station. The Court held that unless the first respondent (Customs) is shown to have a legal duty in the matter, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued.
While dismissing the writ petition, the court granted liberty to the petitioner to invoke admiralty jurisdiction to seek an appropriate remedy for their grievances.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
