1993 (8) TMI 72 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of waiver of demurrage charges by Port Trust Authorities based on incorrect grounds.
2. Discrepancy in guidelines for issuance of detention certificates by Customs Department.
3. Obligation of Port Trust Authorities to reconsider the claim for waiver of demurrage charges.

Analysis:
1. The petitioners were aggrieved by the Port Trust Authorities' refusal to grant remission of demurrage charges based on the grounds that the detention certificate they provided did not align with the existing rules. The Port Trust Authorities rejected the claim citing that the detention certificate did not mention "due to Bona fide Operation of the Customs formalities," as specified in a Public Notice dated 29-7-1985. The petitioners argued that detention due to bona fide operation of customs formalities is also a valid ground for waiver, which was contested by the Port Trust Authorities.

2. The discrepancy in the guidelines for issuance of detention certificates by the Customs Department came to light during the proceedings. The Assistant Collector of Customs issued a detention certificate, which was initially deemed invalid by the Port Trust Authorities based on the Public Notice dated 29-7-1985. However, it was later discovered that the guidelines had been amended through Public Notice No. 13 of 1987, dated 5-2-1987, allowing detention certificates for cases "due to bona fide Customs Formalities." The Court criticized the lack of awareness among responsible officers regarding the relevant rules and notifications governing their activities, emphasizing the need for strict compliance to prevent such discrepancies.

3. The Court directed the Port Trust Authorities to reconsider the petitioners' claim for waiver of demurrage charges in accordance with the modified guidelines provided in Public Notice No. 13 of 1987 and Port Trust Resolution No. 58, dated 8th March, 1988. Additionally, the Court clarified that the Port Trust could not raise the plea of limitation regarding the application for refund, ensuring that the claim would be reviewed on its merits within a specified timeframe. The judgment highlighted the importance of adherence to updated guidelines and the obligation of authorities to act in accordance with the prevailing regulations.