2014 (12) TMI 229 - HC - Customs

Payment of ground rent paid - Detention of cargo - clearance of the container - payment of demurrage charges - Held that - The position that emerges on the facts in this case is the Port Authority should have sold the goods within two months from 12th February, 1996 being the date of the said earlier order wherein the submissions made on behalf of the Customs were recorded, that their detention of the goods had been set aside by this Court upon being challenged. The Port Authority having had collected demurrage charges from the petitioners by debiting their marine account till then, had two months therefrom to sell the goods or in any event cause the 78 containers to be released thereafter. At least it was not brought to the notice of this Court that any sum on account of demurrage charges was outstanding as had not been debited to the petitioners marine account for the period prior to filing of the writ petition. The period beyond in which the goods were kept in the containers requiring them to be detained was at the instance of the Port Authority when it had no lien and demurrage charges for that period cannot be fastened on the petitioners. The petitioners having admitted their liability to pay de-stuffing charges to the tune of ₹ 6,84,849.80/- on account of cost of de-stuffing 78 containers in terms of the said order dated 4th December, 1996, there will be a direction upon the learned Advocate on record of the petitioners to pay the said sum to the Port Authority along with demurrage charges payable in respect of 78 containers for a period of two months commencing on and after 12th February, 1996, at the relevant prescribed rate out of the proceeds of the short term fixed deposit kept renewed from time to time which the said learned Advocate on record will encash- Petition disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
Release of containers, refund of ground rent, liability for demurrage charges.

Analysis:
1. The petitioners, a steamer agent and shipowner, sought mandamus for the release of 78 containers and refund of ground rent. An earlier court order directed the authorities to allow de-stuffing of cargo and refund ground rent. The Port Trust appealed, leading to a remand for hearing on affidavits and a deposit requirement.

2. The containers were de-stuffed and removed by the petitioners after complying with the court's directions. The issue arose whether the petitioners were liable for demurrage charges claimed by the Port Authority. The detention of cargo by Customs and subsequent actions by the Port Authority were central to this issue.

3. The Port Authority contended that the petitioners were liable for demurrage charges for the entire period the containers were at the Port premises. They argued that containers were considered goods under the Major Port Trust Act, entitling them to recover demurrage charges.

4. The petitioners relied on legal precedents to argue against liability for demurrage charges. They emphasized cases where consignees were held responsible for charges and the obligation of Port Authorities to sell goods if consignees showed no interest.

5. The court found that the Port Authority should have sold the goods within two months of the earlier court order. Any demurrage charges collected beyond that period could not be imposed on the petitioners. The court directed the petitioners to pay de-stuffing charges and demurrage for the specified period.

6. The judgment concluded by instructing the petitioners' advocate to pay the specified amounts to the Port Authority from the deposited sum. The court disposed of the writ petition with these directions, emphasizing compliance with the payment obligations.

This detailed analysis covers the issues of container release, ground rent refund, and liability for demurrage charges as addressed in the judgment delivered by the Calcutta High Court.