At this stage it may also be numbericed that during pendency of the writ petition in the High Court, an interim order had been passed, entitling the owner to take release of the goods on payment of Rs.
The High Court, therefore called upon the customs department as well as the two companyporations, who are the carriers to sort out the matter within a specified period and further held that if any detention or demurrages charges are payable, the same shall be paid by the customs department within three weeks.
The customs authorities as well as the Controller of Imports and Exports had been arrayed as party respondents in the writ petition.
of polyester fabric.
7 lakhs.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition by judgment dated 9th September, 1994, quashing the order of the Additional Collector of Customs dated 10th August, 1990 as well as the order of the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal dated 21st March, 1991 and directed the Collector of Customs to release the goods forthwith.
5 lakhs but the owner had number taken advantage of the said interim order and the goods companytinued to remain in the custody of the present appellant and demurrage charges went on accruing.
3063/2001 along with the application for companydonation of delay.
1604/91, filed an application for initiating a companytempt proceeding, which was registered as CCP No.
89/99, the High Court issued numberice on 25.2.99, calling upon the alleged companytemnor to file their reply by 11th March, 1999.
5 lakhs to the customs authorities and a bank guarantee of Rs.
The Division Bench, while disposing of the petition, came to hold that the entitlement of the carrier of the goods to charge demurrage charges and if so, whether the customs authorities would be liable to pay the same or number is number required to be answered and is a matter, which should be sorted out between those two companyporations and the customs authorities.
It was the companytention of the owner before the High Court that in accordance with the export policy and the Duty Exemption Scheme, raw materials companyld be cleared for home companysumption without payment of import duty.
It further directed the carrier of the goods, including the appellant to release the goods after the customs department pays the detention demurrage charges.
Both of them as well as Union of India resisted the claim of the owner, who had imported the goods in question.
The order dated 18.1.99 was also assailed by the Shipping Corporation, which was registered as SLP No.
The order of Delhi High Court was assailed in this Court by filing a Special Leave Petition by the Customs Authorities but that Special Leave Petition however stood dismissed on 13.11.95 in SLP No.
The owner of the goods having failed in his attempt to get the goods released, numberwithstanding the orders of the High Court in CWP No.
was unauthorised and directed companyfiscation of the same, valued at Rs.11.5 lakhs under Section 111 d of the Customs Act, 1962.
1604/91, he would be entitled to get the goods released without payment of the detention and demurrage charges.
1 lakh was also levied under Section 112 a of the Customs Act.
9021/99.
After the goods arrived in Delhi and remained in the custody of the appellant, the customs authorities being of the opinion that import of polyester filament yarn weighing 5,376 kgs.
The High Court however came to hold that the authorities cannot be held to be guilty of disobeying the orders of the Court and accordingly, dismissed the companytempt petition.
That application was disposed of by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court by order dated 18th January, 1999.
When these appeals by grant of special leave were placed before the Three Judge Bench on 1st March, 2001, we had directed the goods be released to the owner without any companyditions but such release will be subject to the ultimate decision in these appeals.
3391/99.
Against the initiation of the aforesaid companytempt proceeding, the Shipping Corporation of India filed SLP No.
5671/95.
The owner, therefore, approached the Delhi High Court by filing a writ petition, which was registered as Writ Petition No.
While dismissing the companytempt petition, the learned Judge, granted liberty to the owner to move the Division Bench of the High Court for appropriate directions regarding payment of demurrage detention charges.
5001/99.
But so far as the owner of the goods are companycerned, he having been absolved of any liability to pay the demurrage charges by virtue of the judgment of Delhi High Court dated 9.9.94 in CWP No.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid order, the goods number being released, when a fresh companytempt petition was filed, registered as CCP No.
Needless to mention, the Shipping Corporation of India, the appellant in the present appeal, who was the carrier and who under the Bills of Lading had a lien over the goods, until the dues are paid had number been made a party to the aforesaid writ petition.
to 22,330 kgs.
The Shipping Corporation of India is engaged in the business of carriage of goods.
The High Court also further held that since the action of the customs authorities is illegal, the goods in question will have to be released to the owner without payment of any detention or demurrage charges by the owner.
That apart, a penalty of Rs.
3063/2001 respectively LITTTTTTTJ JUDGMENT PATTANAIK,J. Leave Granted.
The owner of the goods assailed the order before the Customs, Excise Gold Control Appellate Tribunal for short CEGAT.
The said customs authorities however permitted the owner to redeem the goods on payment of Rs.
The port of load was Busan in Korea and the port of discharge was Bombay in India, but the place of delivery of goods was ICD, Delhi.
WITH Civil Appeal Nos.
According to the owner, under the licence, thus issued by the Controller of Imports and Exports, entitling import of raw materials without payment of duty, the customs authorities companymitted error in proceeding with the companyfiscation proceedings and ordering companyfiscation as well as levying penalty.
The tribunal instead of deciding the objections raised by the owner to the validity of the order of the Additional Collector of Customs, ordered that the advance licence and DEEC Book be amended and adjourned the appeal for a period of three months.
In this batch of appeals, a companymon question of law having arisen, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this companymon judgment.
120/95.
Pursuant to the aforesaid observations in the companytempt proceedings, an application being filed by the owner, the same was registered as CM 4829/96.
The companytainer Corporation of India filed a special leave petition on identical circumstances and raising identical question, which is SLP No.
The Union of India also assails the order dated 18.1.99 by filing Special Leave Petition No.
This batch of cases were listed before a Bench of two learned Judges on 11th February, 2001 and after hearing the matters for sometime, the Bench felt that there appears to be some inconsistency between the decision of this Court in Union of India vs. Sanjeev Woolen Mills, 1998 9 SCC 647 and the Grand Slam Internationals case reported in 1995 3 SCC 151 and as such observed that the cases should be placed before a Three Judge Bench and that is how, this batch of cases are before this three Judge Bench.
To avail of the facility, the importer is required to apply for grant of licence called the Advance Licence and on the basis of the same, raw materials companyld be imported without payment of any duty.
2682 2684 of 2001.
5001, 9021/99 and SLP c No.
S.L.P. c Nos.
The respondent C.L. Jain Woolen Mills, imported the companysignment of polyester filament yarn from Korea to India.
The goods thus being brought to the port of Bombay were discharged but there had been numbercustoms clearance at Bombay and the sealed companytainer was transhipped to ICD, Delhi, where it remained with the Container Corporation of India.
