Golden Importers vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The appellants, Golden Importers and Sakthi Tarpaulin Company, are importers who faced charges for container detention and other related costs for their imported goods. These charges arose during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown period. The appellants contended that advisories and orders issued by the Ministry of Finance and the Director General of Shipping, which suggested deferment of such charges due to the pandemic and declared COVID-19 as a force majeure event, should have exempted them from these costs. The appellants filed writ petitions seeking relief, but the learned single judge declined the interim relief, directing that any payments made would be provisional. The present appeals are against this order.

Held

The High Court dismissed the writ appeals, upholding the order of the learned single judge. The Court found no error in the single judge's decision to decline interim relief. The Court agreed with the reasoning of the Delhi High Court in M/s. Polytech Trade Foundation v. Union of India and Ors., which stated that the advisories and guidelines issued by the government ministries were not binding on private shipping lines and port trusts. The Court emphasized that the detention and demurrage charges were essentially contractual matters between the appellants and the service providers. While acknowledging the principles for considering interim relief (prima facie case, balance of convenience, and likelihood of irreparable hardship), the Court found that the learned single judge had implicitly considered these factors. The Court noted that the earlier interim order in a connected writ petition was passed at the admission stage, and subsequently, the court took note of the Delhi High Court's interim order. Therefore, the Court concluded that there was no error in the interim order warranting interference, and the appeals were dismissed without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the advisories and orders issued by the Union of India, including the declaration of COVID-19 as a force majeure event, are binding on private shipping lines and port trusts, thereby obligating them to waive or defer container detention and other penal charges for importers during the lockdown period? (Question of law) Petitioner's Arguments: The appellants argued that the advisories and orders from the Ministry of Finance and the Director General of Shipping, which recommended not to impose detention charges and to consider COVID-19 as a force majeure event, should be binding on the respondents. They relied on Office Memorandum No.F.18/4/2020-PPD dated 19.02.2020, Order No.40-3/2020-DM-I(A) dated 24.03.2020, and advisories from the Director General of Shipping dated 29.03.2020, as well as orders from the Union of India dated 31.03.2020 and 21.04.2020. They contended that these directives implied that exemptions and remissions should be passed down the chain to importers. They also argued that the learned single judge erred in not following an earlier interim order in a connected writ petition and in not considering the binding nature of the government's directives. Revenue/State's Arguments: The respondents, including the Union of India, Director General of Shipping, shipping lines, and port trusts, contended that the advisories and orders were not binding on private entities like shipping lines and port trusts. They argued that the charges levied were based on private contracts between the importers and the service providers. They relied on the observations of the Delhi High Court in M/s. Polytech Trade Foundation v. Union of India and Ors. [WP(C) No.3029/2020], which held that such circulars/guidelines/advisories do not bind private parties and cannot intervene in private contracts. They further argued that the petitioners failed to make out a prima facie case, and the balance of convenience did not lie in their favour.