By the judgment under appeal dated 12.4.2010, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
The companysignees filed bills of entry for 37 out of the 78 companysignments, but subsequently failed to lift the companysignments and thus, they came to be stored at by the Port of Bombay.
Facing a grave loss M s Metal Distributors UK Ltd., requested the present petitioner, if they were interested in purchasing the goods.
Thus, on 16.09.1995, the Port of Bombay rejected the request of the petitioner for grant of remission of demurrage.
The case of the steamer agent was that the Madras Port Trust acted as the agent of the companysignee.
The entire argument in the case revolved around the question whether the Madras Port Trust was acting as an agent of the companysignee or the steamer agent when it took charge of goods discharged from the vessel.
This submission was rejected.
On 23.03.1992, the petitioner through his agent applied to the Customs Authorities to have the Bills of Entry substituted in their name for the 37 companysignments for which the original companysignees had filed Bills of Entry, and also applied to file Bills of Entry for the remaining 41 companysignments lying unclaimed.
The Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition.
The formal agreement between the M s Metal Distributors UK Ltd. and the petitioner was entered subsequently, in April of 1992.
Therefore steamer agents companyld number be companypelled to pay the rate for the said service.
On a further appeal, this Court recorded the issue in para 30 The question for determination, in the case then is whether the law making the steamer agent liable to pay these charges is good law24.
The service such as the one for which the rate had been demanded was a service rendered to the companysignee and number to the steamer agent.
Hence the appeal.
Aggrieved by the order of the Ist respondent, the appellant, filed WP No.2012/19961.
In the meantime the Port of Bombay levied a total of Rs.2,81,67,333 as demurrage charges, the total remission granted by the Port of Bombay was Rs.90,52,535, and therefore demanded a balance of Rs.1,91,14,798 on the ground that the petitioner was liable to pay demurrage for the period of 23.03.1992 till 09.09.1992, on the ground that numberremission companyld be granted prior to date of numbering.
An intra companyrt appeal thereon was allowed by the Division Bench holding that the service in question must be deemed to be service rendered to the companysignee.
Insofar as relevant they are During the period November 1991 to January 1992, 78 shipments of zinc ingots and companyper iron bars were imported by 5 different companysignees from one M s Metal Distributors UK Ltd. these companysignments were landed at the Bombay Port.
It is pertinent to mention that the present petitioner and the original companysignees are numberwhere related, and the present petitioner is a third party to the sales.
The appellant however cleared the goods after making payment of the amount claimed by the 1st respondent towards demurrage , under protest.
The distinguishing factor of the above companysignments was that they were shipped on CAD Basis i.e. cash against documents, in which the title to the goods would remain with the exporter till such a time the importer would retire the documents against payments.
Chelameswar, J. Written submissions filed by the appellant present a reasonably companycise and sufficiently reliable statement of facts for adjudication of this appeal.
