And in pursuance of the order of the Tribunal the Additional Collector of Customs passed the order dated 17th December 1990 directing release of the On 24.1.1991 the Assistant Collector sent a letter to the appellant that since the goods of the respondent were seized by Customs Department on 29th April, 1986 and they have been directed to be released by the Additional Collector of Customs on 17.12.1990 the, demurrage ground rent and other charges accrued on companysignment from 29.4.1986 to 29.12.1990 may be waived.
International Airports Authority of India hereinafter referred to as IAAI and the Central Warehousing Corporation, Container Freight Station, Patparganj in brief CWC obtained leave of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India against direction issued by the High Court of Delhi for release of imported goods without payment of any demurrage charges for the period for which detention certificate had been issued by the Customs Authorities.
It was seized by the Collector of Customs under Section 1 10 of the Act as on sample examination it appeared to be synthetic waste which was restricted item which companyld number be imported without a valid import licence.
3235 of 1989, whereby the IAAI the appellant herein, was directed to refund demurrage charges which it had companylected in respect of the goods of the petitioner therein respondents herein, despite the detention certificate issued in respect of such goods by the Asstt.
As a detention certificate had, been issued by the Customs authorities, the Corporation was bound to release the goods to the importer and it was the Customs authorities who were responsible to the Corporation for the demurrage charges.
But the IAAI or the CWC instead of treating entire period as free period granted rebate and calculated demurrage in accordance with Rate Schedule framed by them.
The valuation given in the bill of entry was objected to by Additional Collector of Customs, and he passed an order on 8th November 1989 enhancing the value of the goods and di recting companyfiscation of the same.
3971 of 1992 arises out of the Judgment dated 3.2.1992 of the High Court of Delhi in Civil Writ Petition No.
Since the order enhancing the valuation and directing companyfiscation was quashed the Collector of Customs issued detention certificate from 7.8.1989 to 12.7.1990.
After the claim was accepted the respondent wrote a letter to the appellant that since the claim had been accepted by the Customs Authorities and IAAI at the time of release had stated that this question of refund shall be companysidered after final decision was taken by the Customs Authorities the amount of Rs.3,26,645/ paid to wards demurrage may be refunded.
But the Assistant Collector, Customs was requested to inform the importer that they will have to bear entry fee, handling and insurance charges and ground rent after 29.12.1990 in case the Head Office agrees for waiver.
Collector of Customs.
In Appeal No.798 of 1992 the respondent filed with the Customs Authorities bill of entry on cargo terminal alongwith all documents to seek clearance of goods, namely, printing papers etc.
In appeal the Customs, Excise Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi quashed the order of the Additional Collector of Customs on 3rd July 1990.
And the Writ Petition shall stand dismissed.
In each of these cases the Customs Department had issued Detention Certificate and informed IAAI and CWC that numberdemurrage may be charged for the period during which the goods were in custody of IAAI or the CWC due to pendency of adjudication proceedings.
The orders passed by the High Court are set aside.
3971 of 1992 the respondent had imported multi cable transit cable sealing system.
The clearance of goods was claimed under Tariff Item No.85.47 on payment of duty 135.75.
The High Court did number direct the Union of India to pay to the Authority demurrage charges for the periods companyered by the detention certificates, as had been done in the case of M s. Trishul Impex, but directed the Authority to release the goods without payment of demurrage charges.
The Corporation was, therefore, directed to release the goods to the im porter upon payment by the Customs authorities of the demurrage charges for the period companyered by the detention certificate.
The explanation of the respondent that test being based on sample drawn on 10 examination was number companyrect number did it represent test of entire companysignment, was number accepted.
thereupon applied for waiver of the demurrage charged for the relevant period.
The department on the other hand directed it to be cleared by paying duty 181.75 under Tariff Item No.39.
According to the appellant the respondent was liable to pay Rs,69, 736/ as on 9.1.91 and thereafter the liability was Rs.300/ per package per week or part thereof The liability of the re spondent till 12.6.1991 was determined at Rs.
in their separate judgments, the drafts of which I had the advantage of going through.
Collector of Customs.
But on 9th January 1991 it was informed by the appellant that the total liability of the demurrage charges was Rs.
It was mentioned in the certificate that the detention was due to case of the respondent pending before the Collector and, in the appeal.
The amount of demurrage in each case came to be two or three times more than the value of the goods, therefore, the respondents approached the High Court by way of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
This decision in its turn relied on an earlier decision given in Trans Asia Carpets v. Union of India, CCP No.
Is there any companyflict in the Public Notice issued by the Customs Authorities and Regulations framed by the IAAI, are some of the questions which arise for companysideration in these appeals.
Divergent views are expressed on the said question by my revered brethren R.M. Sahai and S.P.Bharucha, JJ.
Civil Appeal No.
1,49, 100/ out of which Rs.79,364/ was waived for the period of detention that is, 7.8.89 to 12.7.90.
Such direction was issued by the High Court because of its view that the MM when was the custodian of the goods at the instance of the Collector of Customs, the IAAI was number entitled to recover demurrage charges from the petitioner in the Writ Petition respondent 1 in the appeal the companysignee, for the period companyered by the detention certificate issued by the Collector of Customs or his delegates.
The appellant replied this letter on 25.1.1991 informing the Assistant Collector of Customs that the matter for waiver of ground rent for the period 31.1,1987 to 29.12.1990 has been referred to the Regional Office Head Office.
Civil Appeal No.
1,93,237/ should number be companyfiscated under Section 111 d and III in of the Act and action under Section 112 be taken.
97/87.
On 18th December 1990 it presented an application showing as out of charge of the Customs.
The High Court relied on M s Trishul Impex v. Union of India 1991 2 Delhi Lawyer 1.
In Appeal No.4227 of 1992 the respondent imported a companysignment of wool waste.
The appellant further companydoned the period from 18.12.90 to 9.1.91 as the application for waiver was received and processed during this period.
1751 of 1991, by which it directed the CWC to release the goods of the petitioner therein without companylecting the demurrage charges from the petitioner therein in respect of the period companyered by the detention certificate issued by the Asstt.
Whether they arc binding on the IAAI?
The said question being of companysiderable importance I propose to companysider it indepen dently, express my view thereon and decide the present appeals accordingly.
In Appeal No.
Such view was taken by the High Court, following its earlier Division Bench judgment in M s. Trishul Impex v. Union of India 1991 2 Delhi Lawyer 1.
4227 of 1992 arises out of Judgment dated 22.1.1992 again of the High Court of Delhi in C.W. No.
Civil Appeal No.
However, the claim of the respondent was ultimately accepted.
The respondent.
Such direction, according to the High Court, was issued following its earlier Division Bench judgments in M s. Trishul Impex supra and Grand Slam International v. Union of India C.W. 554 of 1991 decided on 21st September, 1991.
But the respondent was informed that the claim of refund was number admissible.
The Division Bench that heard the application came to the company clusion that the Corporation was the Custodian of the goods under Section 45 2 of the Customs Act.
And provisional clearance was granted on payment of demurrage charges.
Such direction, it is said in the judgment, was issued following its Division Bench judgment in M s. Trishul Impex supra , wherein it was held that the custodian of the goods under section 45 of the Customs Act being the custodian on behalf of the Customs authorities, it was bound to release the goods in favour of the companysignee when once a detention certificate had been issued by the Customs authorities.
798 of 1992 arises out of the Judgment dated 24.9.1991 of the High Court of Delhi in Civil Writ No.
554 of 1991, by which the MM was directed to release the goods to respondent here petitioner in the Writ Petition with out companylecting any demurrage charges for the period for which the detention certificate had been issued by the Assistant Collector of Customs.
Consequently the appeal was allowed.
The decision in Trans Asia supra proceeded on the basis that Airports Authority being an agent of the Collector of Customs was bound by the Detention Certificate granted by the Collector of Customs.
of CIF value of Rs.17,846.00.
1,15,936/ .
