Delhi High Court · 2025-05-23
M/S ANKIT ELECTRONICS vs CONTAINER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.
- Citation / case number
- W.P.(C)-10055/2018 2025:DHC:4281
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Petitioner
- M/S ANKIT ELECTRONICS
- Respondent
- CONTAINER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.
Judgment text excerpt
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on : 22.04.2025 Pronounced on : 23.05.2025 + W.P.(C) 10055/2018 M/S ANKIT ELECTRONICS .....Petitioner Through: Ms. S. Sapra and Mr. Abhinav Jain, Advocates versus CONTAINER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Arun Kumar and Mr. Abhinav Kumar, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI JUDGMENT 1. By way of present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks refund of demurrage charges in terms of Handling of Cargo In Customs Area Regulations, 2009 (hereinafter, referred to as ‘subject regulations’). 2. The facts, in a nutshell are, that the petitioner had imported several consignments of ‘Ferrite Ring Magnets’ in the period between February and April, 2010 against 9 Bills of Entry encompassing 21 containers in toto. The said Bills of Entry were filed at Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad, New Delhi. On 01.02.2010, the said containers were detained by Customs authorities on directions issued by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (hereinafter, ‘DRI’), statedly on the ground that an investigation was pending in respect of the imported subject goods. After examination of 7 out Signature Not Verified Signed By:GAUTAM W.P.(C) 10055/2018 Page 1 of 9 ASWAL Signing Date:23.05.2025 16:59:56 of the 21 containers by the Officers of DRI, the same were found to be in line with the declarations made in the Bills of Entry and accordingly, vide letter dated 08.04.2010, the DRI directed the Customs authorities to assess said consignments of the petitioner on declared value and clear it on payment of appropriate duty. Subsequently, on the payment of ‘ground rent’ or ‘demurrage charges’, the subject goods were released in April, 2010. 3. It is the petitioner’s