The 1st respondent had number authority to deal with he imported goods but was bound to hand them over at the agreed price to the State Trading Corporation or its numberinee The 1st respondent further stated that the only companytroversy raised by the Customs authorities related to a difference in the size of the sheets imported under the import licence and that if the appellants had called upon it to pay by way of demurrage a sum as large as over rupees 3 lakhs, the 1st respondent would have rejected the goods as against the supplier unless the State Trading Corporation was willing to accept the goods.
The unreasonableness of the demurrage charges, according to the 1st respondent, was obvious from the fact that whereas the goods were of the value of Rs.
As regards the 1st respondent, the case of the appellants is that it had companytravened the Import Trade Control regulations, that it was fully aware of the true facts that it was number open to it to take advantage of the wrong certificate issued by respondent 3 and that therefore it was also liable to pay the demurrage.
The local agents of the ship inform the Traffic Manager of the Port Trust of the probable date of arrival of the ship and submit to the customs House the Import General Manifest which companytains a description of the goods which are at board for landing at the Port.
Later, the appellants brought the present suit against the three respondents to recover the demurrage.
The import clearance orders were granted on the recommendation of the Corporation which held the import licence and which arranged for the grant of import clearance permits to persons like the 1st respondent on the basis that the goods were imported on behalf of the Corporation.
According to the 1st respondent, the companysignment imported in April, 1963 was one of a series of companysignments which the 1st respondent had imported under a company tract with the State Trading Corporation for a fixed remuneration.
If the appellants were to enforce their statutory lien, the incidence of the demurrage would have fallen on the Corporation in whom the title to the goods was vested.
The case of the appellants as made out in the plaint is that the liability of respondents 2 and 3 was in the region of companytract or quasi contract, that the appellants were put to a loss due to the wrong certificate issued by the 3rd respondent and therefore respondents 2 and 3 companyld number repudiate their liability to pay the demurrage.
3,20,951.64 by way of demurrage.
1,31,501 appellants were claiming a sum of over rupees 3 lakhs by way of demurrage.
From the Judgment and Decree dated the 23rd December 1971 of the Madras High Court in Civil Suit No.
The appellants permitted the goods to be cleared without then demanding the demurrage which they claimed later, thereby depriving the 1st respondent of an opportunity to reject the goods as against the supplier unless, of companyrse, the Corporation was within to accept them and along with them the liability for the payment of demurrage.
The 1st respondent disputed its liability to pay the demurrage companytending that it companyld number be penalised either for the delay caused by the Customs authorities in clearing the goods or for the issuance by them of a wrong certificate.
By his letter of April 12, 1965 the 3rd respondent owned up the mistake and stated that the certificate was incorrect as the goods were detained in order to ascertain whether the Import Trade Control formalities were companyplied with and number for examination and assessment of duty under section 17 3 and 4 of the Customs Act.
Out of 15 issues framed in the suit, issues 1 and 10 only pertain to the liability of the 1st respondent and on those issues, the facts appearing on the record are too scanty to support the appellants claim against the 1st respondent.
Finally the 1st respondent companytended that the scale of charges in the Port Trust Regulations under the heading Chapter IV Demurrage was void and ultra vires both for the reason that it was unreasonable and because the scale of charges was number within the authority of the appellants.
The case of the appellants is that due to the negligent mistake companymitted by the 3rd respondent in issuing the certificate, they charged to the 1st respondent a sum of Rs.
The 1st respondent preferred an appeal against that order to the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi, which was allowed by the Board on July 27, 1964.
On August 21, 1964 the Clearing Agents of the 1st respondent requested the customs authorities to issue a certificate for the permission of the transit dues for the period during which the goods were detained.
Thinking that the certificate was issued erroneously, appellants wrote a letter dated January 27, 1965 to the 3rd respondent requesting him to reconsider the matter.
158 of 1966 in the High Court of Madras for recovering a sum of Rs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No 707 of 1973.
The appellants called upon the 3rd respondent to pay up the balance but the latter, by his reply dated July 6, 1965 repudiated all liability, companytending that the Union of India companyld number be held liable for the negligent or tortious acts of its officers done in good faith during the companyrse of their official duties and that the appellants should seek J their remedy against the 1st respondent.
3,1 8,968.04 from the respondents by way of demurrage.
The Customs authorities then issued a show cause numberice to the 1st respondent and after companysidering its explanation the 3rd respondent passed an order on November 12, 1963 companyfiscating the goods under section 111 a of the Customs Act, 1962.
S. Ramamurthi, S. Balakrishnan, N. M. Ghatate for the appellant.
The 2nd respondent, the Union of India, set out the various facts attendant upon the import of the goods and companytended that the appellants had numbercause of action against it or the 3rd respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD, J. The Trustees of the Port of Madras, appellants herein, filed suit No.
K. Sen, J. S. Arora and H. K. Puri for respondent No.
L. Sanghi and Girish Chandra for respondents Nos.
158 of 1966.
Acting on this certificate, appellants waived the demurrage for the period companyered by the certificate, whereupon the 1st respondent cleared the companysignment on August 25 and August 27, 1964 on payment of the Harbour dues, Cranage charges and Demurrage charges for the period number companyered by the certificate.
The goods were imported by the 1st respondent under an authorisation issued by the State Trading Corporation of India which held a licence dated June 16, 1962 to import the goods from Hungary.
A learned single Judge referred the suit to a Division Bench which dismissed it by a judgment dated December 23, 1971.
A certificate was accordingly issued by the 3rd respondent stating that the goods were detained by the Customs Authorities from April 24, 1963 to August 21, 1964 for examination under section 17 3 and section 17 4 of the Customs Act 1962, other than in the ordinary process of appraisement and that the detention was due to numberfault or negligence on the part of the 1st respondent.
ex officio Trustees and Trustees appointed by virtue of office.
The Clearing Agents of the 1st respondent filed a Bill of Entry with the 3rd respondent but the customs authorities detained the goods as the specifications in the import licence did number tally with the description of the imported goods.
2 and 3.
The 3rd respondent adopted the written statement of the 2nd respondent.
The 1st respondent is a firm called M s. Aminchand Pyarelal, the 2nd respondent is the Union of India and the 3rd respondent is the Collector of Custom, Madras.
This is an appeal by certificate granted by the High Court under Article 133 1 a of the Constitution.
The appellants received the goods and stored them in transit sheds.
On April 10, 1963 a Steamer A.P.J. AKASH arrived at the Madras Port and landed, among other goods, a companysignment of 202 bundles of black plain sheets of various sizes.
1963.60 only whereas it was liable to pay a sum of Rs.
