9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (10) TMI 51 - HC - CustomsDemurrage/port charges - Import of machinery - DGFT declined to grant the Petitioner an EPCG licence for two of the second-hand machines - were not covered under the new EXIM policy, which became effective only from 1st April 1999 - Auction of the machinery belonging to the Petitioner - Petitioner deposited a sum of money - Held that - After adjusting the amount deposited with it by the Petitioner, it will be open to the MPT to recover the balance amount of demurrage from the Petitioner in accordance with law - The writ petition and pending applications are dismissed.
Issues:
1. Writ of mandamus for demurrage charges payment to Mumbai Port Trust (MPT) by Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT). 2. Quashing of auction by MPT and representation decision by MPT. 3. Delay in clearing imported goods due to DGFT, Customs Department, and MPT. 4. Legal validity of demurrage charges and lien under Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. 5. Liability of Customs Department for demurrage charges reimbursement. Detailed Analysis: 1. The Petitioner, a private limited company, sought a writ of mandamus to direct DGFT to pay demurrage charges claimed by MPT for Lot No. 6747. The Petitioner also requested quashing of an auction by MPT and a decision on its representation regarding demurrage charges. The Petitioner imported machinery, facing delays due to government permissions and policies, leading to demurrage accumulation and auction notice without prior warning. 2. The Petitioner's delay in clearing goods was attributed to DGFT, Customs Department, and MPT. The High Court of Punjab & Haryana granted Special Import License (SIL) to the Petitioner, but demurrage challenges remained unresolved. The MPT quantified demurrage charges, leading to legal disputes and court interventions. 3. MPT defended its actions under the Major Port Trusts Act, stating demurrage became payable upon goods' landing, with a lien over imported goods for dues. The MPT acted within legal provisions for auctioning goods after a specified period. The Petitioner argued delays were caused by government entities, seeking relief from full demurrage payment. 4. The Customs Department clarified that the Petitioner's delay in filing a bill of entry led to the prolonged process, emphasizing legal requirements under the Customs Act. The court considered the legal positions under various judgments, distinguishing between Customs duties and port charges, emphasizing the separate liabilities of importers. 5. The court referenced past judgments to conclude that the Customs Department could not be directed to reimburse or pay demurrage charges to MPT. The court allowed MPT to recover the balance demurrage after adjusting the amount deposited by the Petitioner. The Petitioner was advised to seek other legal remedies for reimbursement, and the writ petition was dismissed, highlighting the distinct liabilities under the law for demurrage payments.
|
