2013 (6) TMI 93 - HC - Customs

Liability for demurrage - it is contended that the appellant (revenue) was not at fault in not registering the Bill of Entry of the respondent No.1 on the ground that the earlier Bill of Entry with respect to the same goods, had been filed by the respondent No.3 and since DRI enquiry was underway against the sister concern of the respondent No.3. Held that - matter to be no longer res integra and being covered by the judgments in International Airports Authority of India Vs. Grand Slam International 1995 (2) TMI 70 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA and Union of India Vs. Navshakti Industries P. Ltd. 2013 (5) TMI 41 - DELHI HIGH COURT . - Resultantly, the judgment of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. Unfortunately, before the learned Single Judge, attention to Grand Slam International was not drawn and the same does not find mention in the impugned judgment. - Decided in favor of revenue.

Issues:
1. Appeal against judgment directing registration of Bill of Entry and clearance of goods.
2. Failure to release consignment despite interim relief.
3. Respondents' absence in court hearings.
4. Dispute over ownership and clearance of imported goods.
5. Allegations of collusion and fraudulent clearance.
6. Liability for demurrage charges.
7. Interpretation of Customs Act provisions and relevant case laws.

1. Appeal against judgment directing registration of Bill of Entry and clearance of goods:
The appeal challenged a judgment directing the registration of a Bill of Entry for goods and their clearance in the name of a specific respondent. The appellant was directed to bear demurrage charges for the goods. The court noted the history of the case and the appellant's contention against the judgment.

2. Failure to release consignment despite interim relief:
Despite an order for interim relief, the consignment in question was not released promptly. The court observed discrepancies in the release status of the goods but noted eventual release and utilization by the respondent.

3. Respondents' absence in court hearings:
The court highlighted the absence of respondents in multiple court hearings, leading to the decision to proceed with the case without further delay due to the appeal's age.

4. Dispute over ownership and clearance of imported goods:
The case involved a dispute over the ownership and clearance of imported goods originally consigned to a third party but later sold to the respondent. The respondent sought direction for registration of the Bill of Entry and clearance of goods.

5. Allegations of collusion and fraudulent clearance:
Allegations of collusion and fraudulent clearance were raised by the appellant against the respondent, claiming non-bona fide dealings and attempts to clear goods liable for confiscation under the Customs Act.

6. Liability for demurrage charges:
The court analyzed the liability for demurrage charges, considering the appellant's argument against bearing such charges and citing relevant case laws regarding the authority's entitlement to charge demurrage for goods in custody.

7. Interpretation of Customs Act provisions and relevant case laws:
The court referred to provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, and previous judgments to interpret the legal aspects of the case. Specific attention was given to case laws like International Airports Authority of India Vs. Grand Slam International and Union of India Vs. Navshakti Industries P. Ltd., influencing the decision on demurrage charges.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the judgment holding the appellant liable for demurrage charges. The court directed the recovery of demurrage charges from the respondents and awarded costs to the appellant. The decision was based on the interpretation of relevant legal provisions and precedents, emphasizing the non-liability of the appellant for demurrage charges.

← Previous Next →