1994 (10) TMI 77 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Challenge to the action of Respondent No. 3 in demanding fees exceeding those specified in the Customs Regulations.
- Interpretation of Sections 157, 158, and 45 of the Customs Act 1962.
- Authority of Respondent No. 3 to levy fees for services rendered under the Act.
- Dispute regarding the fees charged by Respondent No. 3 for services provided at the Customs Clearance Centre.
- Legal implications of the Collector of Customs designating the Bourse as the Customs area.

Analysis:

The judgment involves a dispute where the petitioners challenge the fees demanded by Respondent No. 3, which exceed the rates specified in the Customs Regulations. The petitioners argue that the authority appointed under Section 45 of the Customs Act cannot levy fees beyond those set out in the table annexed to the Regulations. The court examines the powers conferred by Sections 157 and 158 of the Act, emphasizing that the Board has the authority to determine the fees for services rendered by customs officers. It is established that Respondent No. 3, despite being delegated the duty of rendering services, cannot charge fees exceeding those prescribed by the Board under the Regulations.

The judgment delves into the specific rates of fees charged by Respondent No. 3 for services at the Customs Clearance Centre. It is noted that different rates are applied for members and non-members of the Bourse. Respondent No. 3 justifies the additional charges by claiming that they cover expenses such as transportation, security, and rent of the premises. However, the court rules that Respondent No. 3 cannot unilaterally set fees above those specified in the Regulations, even if additional services are provided.

Further, the judgment addresses the authority of Respondent No. 3 to dictate the fees for services rendered under the Act. It is clarified that while the Collector of Customs may designate a specific entity for clearance services, that entity cannot demand fees exceeding the regulated rates. The court emphasizes that the services must be provided at the prescribed fees, as modified from time to time, in accordance with the Customs Regulations.

In conclusion, the court rules in favor of the petitioners, directing Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to adhere to the fees set out in the Customs Regulations and not charge amounts exceeding those specified. Additionally, the court orders the refund of excess fees deposited by the petitioners in compliance with a previous court directive, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the regulated fee structure.