Case Law Details
Acme Ware Housing Private Limited Vs Principal Commissioner (Preventive) (Madras High Court)
The licensee under the Bonded Warehouse Scheme acts as an Agent on behalf of the Customs Department for that purposes and the provisions of Sections 57 to 73A in Chapter IX of the Customs Act, 1962 read with The Warehouse (Custody and Handling of Goods) Regulations, 2016, deal with these issues in detail. Section 58B of the Act, under which the said license was cancelled by the concerned authority, clearly stipulates vide Section 58B (4) of the Act that where the license issued under Section 57 or Section 58 or Section 58A, the three different kinds of licenses, is cancelled, the goods warehoused shall within seven days from the date on which order of such cancellation is served on the licensee or within such extended period as the proper officer may allow, be removed from such warehouse to another warehouse or be cleared for home consumption or export.
Therefore, the law enjoins upon the licensee a duty to clear off the goods after cancellation of the license within seven days. There is no case of extension of period under Sub-section (4) of Section 58B of the Act in the present case. Therefore, in the eye of law, the possession of the vacant licensed warehouse, after seven days of the impugned order passed by the Customs Authority on 29.05.2020, should be deemed to be with its owner only. Even assuming for argument sake that this observation may affect the right of the appellant/petitioner in the pending suit before the Civil Court, it is the appellant/petitioner who is to be blamed for this, because it is the appellant/petitioner who has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court based upon an interim order passed by the trial Court.
The plaint of the injunction suit filed by the appellant/petitioner only seeks injunction against the third respondent/defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession during the period of the lease. The said suit was filed much before the expiry of the lease period on 31.03.2020 and the interim order of status quo granted by the trial Court on 26.04.2019 also cannot extend beyond the extent of the period of lease itself nor it can validate the possession of the licensee beyond the period of lease. We do not see any reason to extend the scope of the civil suit, which may be so if the contention of the appellant/petitioner before us is to be accepted.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
