IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 9082 of 2009 Between: M/s. Walter Traders, Off: # 10 & 11, Sunanda Devi Complex, Opp. Mahalaxmi Theatre, Kothapet, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad rep. by its Managing Partner, P. Rakesh Reddy, S/o. Ganga Reddy Aged 40 Yrs. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise-II L.B. Stadium Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 2 The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, I.C.D. Sanathnagar, Hyderabad. 3 The Senior General Manager, Container Corporation of India Limited, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No.CON/SNF/Exp-Wfg/I/2008/220, dated 4.6.2008 of the respondent No.3 herein as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.TULASI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No : 9082 of 2009 O R D E R : This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the proceedings of the third respondent-the Container Corporation of India dated 04.06.2008, where under the petitioner herein was directed to pay a sum of Rs.17,19,802/- towards storage charges and other charges for clearance of red sanders seized by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise is arbitrary and illegal. It is not in dispute that though by order dated 28.01.2005, the seized material was confiscated by the first respondent by imposing a fine of Rs.7 lakhs, on appeal, the Custom, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal by order dated 09.03.2006 set aside the order dated 28.01.2005 and remanded the matter for granting redemption of the seized goods on appropriate fine to be determined by the Commissioner. Pursuant thereto, though the redemption charges were fixed at Rs.10 lakhs, on a further appeal preferred by the petitioner by order dated 03.12.2007 the Tribunal reduced the redemption fine to Rs.50,000/-. The fact that the petitioner had paid the said amount is not in dispute. However, the third respondent- Corporation issued the impugned proceedings dated 04.06.2008 calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.17,19,802/- as a condition precedent for clearance of red sanders from its premises. The said order dated 04.06.2008 is under challenge in this writ petition. It is mainly contended on behalf of the petitioner that since the storage charges were incurred by keeping the seized material when it was in the custody of the Customs Department, the petitioner cannot be made liable for the charges claimed by the third respondent- Corporation. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the third respondent-Corporation and I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Though various contentions have been raised by both parties, it is brought to my notice by the counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments that pending this writ petition, the petitioner made a fresh application on 18.06.2009 requesting the third respondent-Corporation to waive the demurrage and other charges at-least to the extent of 80% keeping in view the deterioration of the value of the material kept in custody of the Corporation for the last about 5 years. Having regard to the said subsequent events and keeping in view the petitioner’s representation seeking waiver of the demurrage and other charges is pending before the Corporation, I am of the opinion that it is not necessary for this Court to go into the merits of the case at this stage. Instead, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the third respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 18.06.2009 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 27-07-2009 KLP