9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (8) TMI 686 - HC - CustomsWaiver of rent/demurrage charges for import of Particle Board - The petitioner seeks for waiver of the detention charges on the ground that the detention was not on account of their fault, as the Department had detained the goods - Held that - this is unreasonable because after the order was passed on 28.12.2016, effective steps have been taken by the petitioner to clear the cargo and it has been done in the shortest possible time on 06.01.2017. Therefore, the third respondent should waive the rent or demurrage on the goods for the entire period i.e., from 02.12.2016 till it was cleared on 06.01.2017. The question of now interpreting the order are extending partial relief is not permissible as the Regulation uses the expression shall not charge any rent or demurrage. This, mandates that the third respondent is prohibited from charging any rent or demurrage during the period of detention. This having been certified by the second respondent, there is no escape from the rigour of Regulation No.6(1)(l). Thus, the matter is not contractual, but it involves the implementation of a statutory regulation. Therefore, the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable. The rent/demurrage on the goods which were detained at the instance of second respondent is waived - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
Issues:
1. Petitioner seeking Writ of Mandamus to waive rent/demurrage charges for detained goods. 2. Interpretation of Regulation 6(1)(l) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulation, 2009. 3. Compliance of custodian (third respondent) with directive of Department. 4. Dispute regarding waiver of charges by third respondents. 5. Maintainability of Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Analysis: 1. The petitioner, engaged in importing particle boards, sought a Writ of Mandamus to direct the Deputy Commissioner of Customs to waive rent/demurrage charges for goods detained for investigation. The detention period was from 02.12.2016 to 27.12.2016, with the Department directing waiver of charges. The petitioner argued that as the detention was not their fault, the third respondent container terminal should waive charges and release the goods. 2. The Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulation, 2009, specifically Regulation 6(1)(l), prohibits custodians from charging rent or demurrage on goods detained by Customs officials. The second respondent certified the detention period and ordered the custodian not to charge rent or demurrage. The court ruled that custodians cannot interpret this directive and must comply with it fully. In one case, where goods were cleared on 06.01.2017, the court deemed it unreasonable to levy charges from 28.12.2016 to 06.01.2017, as the petitioner promptly cleared the cargo after the order. 3. The third respondents, M/s.Calyx Container Terminals and M/s.K.Steamship Agencies, had different responses to the waiver directive. While M/s.Calyx Container Terminals complied, M/s.K.Steamship Agencies only provided a 25% waiver, contrary to the regulation. The court emphasized that custodians are bound by the order and cannot charge any rent or demurrage during the detention period as mandated by the regulation. 4. The court held that the matter was not contractual but involved statutory regulation implementation. Therefore, the Writ Petitions were deemed maintainable, and the custodians were directed to waive rent/demurrage charges as per the Department's directive within a specified time frame. 5. The court concluded by directing M/s.Calyx Container Terminals to waive charges from 02.12.2016 to 06.01.2017 and M/s.K.Steamship Agencies to waive charges from 02.12.2016 till the containers were cleared on 07.01.2017/13.01.2017. The custodians were instructed to comply with the court's directions within two weeks, ensuring full and faithful compliance without costs incurred by the petitioner.
|
