2001 (5) TMI 58 - HC - Customs

Issues Involved:
1. Payment of container detention charges and port charges.
2. Legality of Customs authorities' actions under Sections 110 and 124 of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Liability for demurrage and detention charges.
4. Applicability of Circulars issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs.
5. Protection under Section 155 of the Customs Act, 1962.
6. Jurisdiction of the writ court to grant monetary relief.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Payment of Container Detention Charges and Port Charges:
The petitioners sought a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay the container detention charges and port charges from 19th August 1997 until re-export. The court noted that the consignment was seized by Customs authorities immediately after landing at Calcutta Port in July 1997, and the petitioners' request for re-export was not acted upon by the Customs authorities, resulting in the accrual of detention and demurrage charges.

2. Legality of Customs Authorities' Actions under Sections 110 and 124 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The initial writ petition challenged the show cause notice issued under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, which was quashed by the court. The court found the Customs authorities' actions to be without jurisdiction. This judgment was upheld by the Division Bench, which dismissed the appeal against the quashing of the show cause notice.

3. Liability for Demurrage and Detention Charges:
The court held that although the primary liability to pay detention and other charges lies with the petitioners, this burden can be shifted to the Customs authorities, who were responsible for the delay in clearance of the goods. The court referenced a previous judgment where the Customs authorities were directed to pay port dues, indicating that the petitioners should not bear the financial burden caused by the Customs authorities' actions.

4. Applicability of Circulars Issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs:
The petitioners argued that the Customs authorities failed to follow Circular No. 84/94-Cus., dated 25th July 1995, and Circular No. 83/98-Cus., dated 5th November 1998, which could have mitigated the charges by moving the goods to a Customs Warehouse or destuffing the containers. The court found that the Customs authorities' inaction in following these circulars contributed to the accrual of charges.

5. Protection under Section 155 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The court rejected the argument that the Customs authorities were protected under Section 155 of the Customs Act, 1962, since their actions were found to be without jurisdiction. The court emphasized that protection under this section is not applicable when the actions are ultra vires and not in bona fide exercise of duty.

6. Jurisdiction of the Writ Court to Grant Monetary Relief:
The court held that it has the jurisdiction to grant monetary relief in cases of tortious actions by public authorities. Citing various Supreme Court judgments, the court affirmed that writ jurisdiction can be used to award compensation for damages arising from wrongful actions by public authorities, including those under tortious liability.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the Customs authorities are liable for the payment of detention and demurrage charges up to 4th September 2000, as their actions were without jurisdiction and in violation of the applicable circulars. The petitioners are responsible for charges incurred after this date. The writ petition succeeded to the extent that the Customs authorities were directed to pay the charges up to the specified date, with the petitioners bearing the subsequent charges. The court awarded costs to the petitioners, assessed at 300 grams.

← Previous Next →