2024 (3) TMI 1300 - HC - Customs

Levying Container Storage Charges - ground rent - Storage of confiscated containers to treated as Goods or not - declaration of Custodian at Kandala Port Trust issued from the office of the Commissioner of Customs, the Custom House, Kandala - Section 45(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Kandala Port Trust could not have charged ground rent from the petitioner as the containers could not have been confiscated by the Customs authorities, as they did not fall within the meaning of goods , is found to be misconceived. The reference to the decision of the Apex Court in Chairman, Board of Trustees, Cochin Port Trust 2020 (8) TMI 300 - SUPREME COURT is found to be misplaced. No ground rent can be levied on the petitioner shipping agent, once the Kandala Port Trust became the custodian of the goods with the confiscation by the Customs department. There are inherent fallacy in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, inasmuch as, the said notification only decides the liability of the Kandala Port Trust for being custodian of the Custom department and Clause 18 of the said notification can only be interpreted to mean that the Kandala Port Trust would not charge any rent/ demurrage on the goods/containers detained from the Customs department. There are no error in the order passed by the learned single Judge in holding that the petitioner has failed to make out a case that there was an error on the part of the Kandala Port Trust in levying container storage charges from the petitioner. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved: Challenge to order on container storage charges by shipping agent, validity of confiscation of goods and containers by custom authorities, liability of Kandala Port Trust for container storage charges.

Challenge to order on container storage charges:
The Letters Patent Appeal was filed by Goodrich Maritime Pvt. Ltd., a shipping agent, to challenge the order passed by the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition regarding the container storage charges levied by Kandala Port Trust. The imported goods were confiscated by custom authorities due to being explosive material/war material. The petitioner shipping agent had requested to de-stuff the goods for re-export, but became inactive, leading to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Validity of confiscation by custom authorities:
Orders of confiscation were passed by custom authorities under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, for both goods and containers. The petitioner's argument, based on a Supreme Court decision, that containers did not constitute 'goods' was deemed invalid. The containers and goods remained confiscated, leading Kandala Port Trust to levy container storage charges on the shipping agent.

Liability of Kandala Port Trust for container storage charges:
The petitioner contended that Kandala Port Trust could not charge ground rent once they became custodian of the containers and goods. However, a notification clarified that the Trust would not charge rent on goods detained by the Customs department. The Court found no error in the Trust levying container storage charges and directed revised bills to be provided to the petitioner based on events up to the de-stuffing of containers in 2007.