2024 (7) TMI 1470 - HC - Customs

Notices for payment of Terminal Handling Charges (THC) levied by Port Terminals - HELD THAT - The petitioners are agreeable to the Impugned Public Notices No. 14 of 2020 dated 28th January 2020 and 11 of 2020 dated 17th January 2020 being read subject to the contracts between the Shipping lines and exporter/importer. This is on account of paragraph No.24 of the affidavit in reply at page no.127 of the Writ Petition No. 2914 of 2021 wherein it is averred that the Impugned Public Notices dated 28th January 2020 and 17th January 2020 do not interfere with private contracts that the shipping lines have with the importers and exporters. Therefore, the Impugned Public Notices No. 14 of 2020 and 11 of 2020 dated 28th January 2020 and 17th January 2020, respectively, are subject to the private contracts which shipping lines have with importers/exporters. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging public notices on Terminal Handling Charges (THC) by Customs Commissioner.
Interpretation of public notices interfering with private contracts.
Validity of communications from the Customs Department.
Applicability of judgments from Madras High Court and Kerala High Court.
Authority of Customs Department to issue public notices.

Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court of Bombay dealt with several crucial issues. Firstly, the petitioners contested public notices related to Terminal Handling Charges (THC) issued by the Customs Commissioner. The notices, bearing specific numbers and dates, directed the implementation of certain directions regarding THC levied by Port Terminals. Additionally, communications from a Special Secretary Logistics emphasized the mandatory nature of these notices, which were challenged by the petitioners.

The affidavit filed by the Customs Department, representing itself and the Union of India, clarified that the public notices did not interfere with private contracts between shipping lines and exporters, thereby not violating constitutional articles. This stance was pivotal in the court's decision-making process.

The judgment acknowledged the petitioners' agreement to consider the public notices subject to the contracts between shipping lines and importers/exporters. It also highlighted discrepancies in the communications from the Special Secretary Logistics, leading to the setting aside of those communications. Moreover, references were made to judgments from the Madras High Court and Kerala High Court, which supported the petitioners' argument regarding the preservation of rights under private contracts.

While the judgments cited by the respondents were noted, the court accepted the petitioners' contention that these judgments did not accurately reflect the legal position concerning the Customs Authority's power to issue such public notices. The judgment concluded by allowing the petitioners to challenge the authority of the Customs Department in issuing such notices in future cases, with a clear directive that the public notices should not interfere with private contracts between shipping lines and importers/exporters. Ultimately, all petitions were disposed of, emphasizing the freedom of shipping lines to engage in contracts based on commercial terms of their choice.