Case Law Details
Juan Global Trading Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs (Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court heard a writ petition filed by Juan Global Trading against the Principal Commissioner of Customs and two other respondents, seeking an order to detain a consignment of copper scrap.
The petitioner had ordered a quantity of copper scrap from the second respondent at the request of the third respondent and had already made payment to the second respondent. The goods were shipped from the State of Georgia and intended for delivery in the UAE. The petitioner alleged that the second respondent committed fraud and planned to deliver the goods to an entity other than the third respondent in the UAE.
The goods were being transhipped in a ship liner scheduled to briefly halt at the Mundra International Container Terminal Ltd Port in Gujarat on October 17, 2025, and depart for the UAE a day later. Since the petitioner had not received payment from the third respondent or the proposed new recipient, the petitioner sought a writ of mandamus from the Madras High Court to direct the Customs (first respondent) to detain the goods.
The petitioner’s counsel relied on Section 54 of the Customs Act, 1962, which deals with the transhipment of goods.
The High Court was not persuaded by the petitioner’s submission for several reasons. Firstly, the court questioned its territorial jurisdiction, noting that the goods were halting in a port in Gujarat, even though the petitioner’s business was in Kanyakumari District. Secondly, and primarily, the court examined Section 54(1) of the Customs Act, which states that transhipment provisions kick in if the goods are “imported into a customs station.” The court referred to Section 2(23) of the Act, which defines “import” as “bringing into India from a place outside India.”
The court’s prima facie view was that the goods, being shipped from Georgia and destined for the UAE with only a brief halt for transhipment in Gujarat, did not appear to be imported into India within the meaning of the Act. The court held that it was not justified in issuing a writ of mandamus unless the Customs authority (first respondent) was shown to have a legal duty in the matter. The High Court ultimately dismissed the writ petition, suggesting that the petitioner may need to invoke admiralty jurisdiction instead to seek an appropriate remedy.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the customs.
2. The writ petitioner had placed an order with the second respondent at the instance of the third respondent for purchase of certain quantity of the copper scrap. The petitioner is said to have already made the payment directly to the second respondent. The second respondent has also shipped the goods. The petitioner alleges that the second respondent had played fraud and that the goods are now proposed to be delivered to some other entity other than the third respondent in UAE. The goods that have been transhipped in a ship liner which would briefly halt in Mundra International Container Terminal Ltd Port in the State of Gujarat. The goods are likely to arrive on 17.10.2025 at around 08.00 pm and leave the Port for UAE a day later. The petitioner has not received any payment from the third respondent or any entity to whom the goods are now proposed to be delivered. The petitioner therefore wants this Court to direct the first respondent to detain the goods.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. She places reliance on Section 54 of the Customs Act, 1962.
4. I am not swayed by the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. This is for more than one reason. The goods have been shipped from the State of Georgia. They are intended for delivery in UAE. The transhipped goods would halt for a brief while in Mundra International Container Terminal Ltd Port in Gujarat. Merely because the writ petitioner is having his place of business in Kanyakumari District, this Court cannot assume the territorial jurisdiction in the matter. Be that as it may, Section 54(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 reads as follows:-
“54. Transhipment of certain goods without payment of duty.—
(1) Where any goods imported into a customs station are intended for transhipment, a bill of transhipment shall be presented to the proper officer in 5 [such form and manner as may be prescribed]:
[Provided that where the goods are being transhipped under an international treaty or bilateral agreement between the Government of India and Government of a foreign country, a declaration for transhipment instead of a bill of transhipment shall be presented to the proper officer in 5 [such form and manner as may be prescribed].]”
5. The aforesaid provision would kick in if the goods are imported into the customs station. The word “import” has been defined in Section 2 (23) of the Act as meaning “bringing into India from a place outside India”.
6. From a bare reading, it does not appear that the goods are going to be imported into India in the customs station. However, this is only a prima facie Unless the first respondent is shown to have a legal duty in the matter, I will not be justified in issuing any writ of mandamus. The writ petitioner may have to invoke admiralty jurisdiction. Granting such liberty to the writ petitioner to avail appropriate remedy, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Author Bio
