1997 (2) TMI 145 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Remission of demurrage charges.
2. Discrimination against the petitioner.
3. Validity of the conditions imposed for remission.
4. Legal right to maintain the writ petition.
5. Implementation of policy decisions by the Port Trust.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Remission of Demurrage Charges:
The petitioner sought a writ of Mandamus to command the respondents to grant remission of demurrage charges for a consignment of ZVL-ZKL Brand Bearings, similar to the remission granted to other importers based in Bombay. The petitioner argued that the consignment was delayed due to customs assessment and not due to any fault on their part. The Port Trust had issued guidelines on 24-1-1992 and subsequent resolutions on 30-8-1995, allowing remission of up to 80% of demurrage charges or release of goods on payment equivalent to the CIF value, whichever was higher.

2. Discrimination Against the Petitioner:
The petitioner claimed discrimination as their application for remission was rejected on the ground that it was filed after 30-8-1995, whereas other importers who applied before this date were granted remission. The petitioner had previously applied for remission on 12-9-1994 and 9-1-1995, but these applications were not considered. The court noted that no cut-off date was specified in the guidelines or the resolution, thus the petitioner was entitled to similar treatment as other importers.

3. Validity of the Conditions Imposed for Remission:
The petitioner contended that the condition imposed by the respondents, requiring applications to be filed before 30-8-1995, was not part of the original guidelines or resolution. The court agreed, stating that the respondents could not rely on a ground inconsistent with the resolution dated 30-8-1995. The court found that the petitioner's right to remission flowed from the resolution and was enforceable in a court of law.

4. Legal Right to Maintain the Writ Petition:
The court held that the petitioner had a legal right to maintain the writ petition. It cited the case of Chaitnya Charan Das v. State of West Bengal, stating that a legal right does not necessarily mean a right flowing from a statute. A citizen can maintain a writ application questioning the inaction of the State in implementing its policy decisions or any unfair, unreasonable, arbitrary, or discriminatory action by the State.

5. Implementation of Policy Decisions by the Port Trust:
The court observed that the Port Trust failed to implement its policy decision regarding the remission of demurrage charges for the petitioner. The court referenced Union of India v. M.P. Joseph, which held that administrative orders could confer rights and impose duties. The court concluded that the policy decision adopted by the Port Trust on 30-8-1995 conferred a right on the petitioner and imposed a corresponding duty on the Board to grant remission to eligible applicants.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the application, set aside the impugned order dated 31-7-1995, and remitted the matter back to the concerned respondents. The respondents were directed to pass a similar order as granted to other consignees who were similarly situated to the petitioner. No order as to costs was made.