9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (1) TMI 389 - HC - CustomsWrit of Mandamus - forbearing the respondents 3 to 5 from demanding or collecting any port charges from the petitioner in respect seven containers - Petitioner in this case claims that the cargo which arrived at the containers were abandoned by the owners of the cargo and the containers which were lying at the terminal is suffering tariff charges as per the TAMP Tariff Authority for Major Ports Orders in force dated 15.5.2009 - Held that - On a reading of clause 3.12.11 of the TAMP Order dated 15.5.2009 as above it is clear that the demand made by the respondents 4 and 5 is based on the tariff determined by the Tariff Authority for Major Ports in exercise of power under Section 48 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. The petitioner relied upon Section 42(4) of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 to say that no person authorized under sub-section (3) shall charge or recover for such service any sum in excess of the amount specified by the Authority, by notification in the Official Gazette. Section 42(4) of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 reads as that no person authorized under sub-section (3) shall charge or recover for such service any sum in excess of the amount specified by the Authority, by notification in the Official Gazette. Thus find no infraction of the above provision as the TAMP Order is issued from time to time invoking the above provision of law. On a reading of clause 3.12.11 of the TAMP order dated 15.5.2009, the respondents 4 and 5 are justified in demanding the storage charges because it is on the basis of the order of the Tariff Authority for Major Ports. They are not demanding anything in excess other than what has been specified in the TAMP Order. Therefore, the said plea has no basis. Petitioner relied upon section 61 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 which deals with sale of goods after two months if the rates or rent are not paid or lien for freight is not discharged. Section 62 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 deals with disposal of goods not removed from premises of within time limit. These two provisions are relatable to the third respondent. No specific relief is sought for against the third respondent, in terms of Section 61 or 62 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 - Petitioner s case is based on interpretation of TAMP earlier Notification which had no relevance to the facts of the present case - no relief as sought for by the petitioner can be granted as the respondents 4 and 5 are demanding payment in accordance with the TAMP Order dated 15.5.2009 notified in G.No.85 dated 29.5.2009. There is no error or illegality in the same.
Issues:
1. Whether the respondents can demand port charges for abandoned containers. 2. Applicability of Tariff Authority for Major Ports (TAMP) orders. 3. Interpretation of TAMP Order dated 15.5.2009. 4. Compliance with Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. 5. Justification for demanding storage charges by respondents 4 and 5. 6. Relevance of Sections 61 and 62 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. Analysis: 1. The petitioner, a shipping company, sought relief from the court to prevent respondents 3 to 5 from collecting port charges for seven containers allegedly abandoned by cargo owners. The containers arrived at the Chennai port, leading to a dispute over the storage charges demanded by the respondents. 2. The respondents, operating the port terminal under a license agreement, were authorized to collect storage charges based on TAMP orders issued under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. The specific TAMP order dated 15.5.2009 was deemed applicable in this case, governing the storage charges on abandoned containers. 3. The court analyzed clause 3.12.11 of the TAMP Order dated 15.5.2009, which outlined conditions for levying storage charges on abandoned containers. The clause specified a timeline for payment and actions required by the container agent or Multi Line Operator (MLO) to avoid continued storage charges. 4. The judgment highlighted the provisions of Section 48 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, which empowered the Tariff Authority for Major Ports to determine rates for port services. The court emphasized that unless challenged, the petitioner was obligated to comply with the rates specified by the Authority. 5. Respondents 4 and 5 were found to be justified in demanding storage charges within the parameters set by the TAMP Order. The court dismissed the petitioner's argument against the charges, stating that the demands were in line with the legal provisions and did not exceed the prescribed amounts. 6. The petitioner's reliance on Sections 61 and 62 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, concerning the sale and disposal of goods for non-payment, was deemed irrelevant to the present case. The court clarified that the petitioner's interpretation of the TAMP notification did not warrant relief, and the demands made by respondents 4 and 5 were lawful and justified. In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the respondents' right to collect storage charges as per the TAMP Order dated 15.5.2009. The judgment emphasized compliance with the Major Port Trusts Act and the Tariff Authority's determinations, rejecting the petitioner's arguments against the charges.
|
