2012 (8) TMI 1109 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of demands for demurrages, penalty, rent.
2. Direction for clearance of goods without payment of demurrages, rent, penalty, or interest.
3. Alternative relief for clearance of goods on payment of calculated rent.
4. Liability of Customs authorities for demurrages.

Summary:

1. Quashing of demands for demurrages, penalty, rent:
The petitioner sought to quash the demands of demurrages, penalty, and rent for the clearance of 582 MTs of stainless steel angles. The Court, referencing the Supreme Court decision in *International Airports Authority of India v. Grand Slam International*, held that the petitioner is liable to pay demurrages to the Kandla Port Trust. Consequently, the prayer for quashing the demand raised by the respondent did not merit acceptance.

2. Direction for clearance of goods without payment of demurrages, rent, penalty, or interest:
The petitioner sought a direction to clear the goods without payment of demurrages, rent, penalty, or interest. The Court found that the petitioner is liable to pay demurrages as per the law, and thus, no such direction could be granted.

3. Alternative relief for clearance of goods on payment of calculated rent:
The petitioner alternatively sought clearance of goods on payment of calculated rent. The Court noted that the petitioner failed to establish that the goods were warehoused on 11-10-1982. The veracity of the letter dated 23-5-2006 (Annexure P-8) was disputed by the respondent, who contended it was fabricated. Therefore, the prayer for clearance on payment of rent could not be granted.

4. Liability of Customs authorities for demurrages:
The petitioner argued that the Customs authorities should be liable for demurrages due to their default. The Court observed that there were no specific pleadings and prayers against the Customs authorities in the petition. Moreover, the Customs authorities could only be held liable until 9th August 1989 for the first consignment. For the second consignment, the delay was due to the petitioner prosecuting the matter before a wrong forum, which could not be attributed to the Customs authorities.

Conclusion:
The petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged. The interim relief granted earlier was vacated but extended for eight weeks to enable the petitioner to approach a higher forum.