9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 459X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent. [Order]. - The Petitioner PIL Mumbai (India) Ltd. acts as agent for various international lines and facilitates import and export of goods in containers in the course of international trade. The Petitioner states that it ensures that the containers of various shipping lines, of which it acts as agent, are shipped to the destination shown in the bill of lading. Alter delivery of the consignment the empty containers, for the import of which the Petitioner executes a bond in favour of the local customs authorities, are required to be re-exported by it within a reasonable time. 2. The Petitioner states that it has nothing to do with the liabilities attaching to the actual import or export of the consignments carried in the containers. Those obligations are of the respective consignors and consignees, as the case may be, and are governed by the contract entered into between those parties. 3. As far as the present case is concerned, two containers (PCU 3686070/20 and TTNU 3868181/20) were shipped into India against combined transport bills of lading issued by PIL. Pacific International Lines (Pte) Ltd., (the shipping line of which the Petitioner here is an agent) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods in the containers, the Petitioner informed the Investigating Officer that the containers have been de-stuffed and sealed by the shipper at its godown at the port of loading (Lagos) itself and that the hills of lading were prepared on the shipper's declaration. The containers reached the customs authorities in India at the Mundhra port with the seals intact. Consequently, no fault or liability could be attributed to the Petitioner for any alleged shortage in the consignment. 8. Aggrieved by the continued detention of the containers by the Respondents, the Petitioner filed the present petition seeking, inter alia, a direction to the Respondents to forthwith release the two containers in question and to compensate the Petitioner for loss of business and loss of profits on account of the detention of the containers. According to the Petitioner the detention charges, if any, are to be paid by the consignee and, therefore, there was no justification for not releasing the containers to the Petitioner. 9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has in addition relied upon the judgment of this Court in Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd. v. Union of India - 1996 (82) E.L.T. 27 (Del.) where in si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aled by the police. The goods are lying in the container. The answering respondent has no objection if the goods are taken either by the importer or Customs to their bounded warehouse and the containers are released after making their payments." 12. At the previous hearing on 28th August, 2009 this Court had impleaded the Anti Forgery Branch, Economic Offence Wing, Crime Branch of Delhi Police as a Respondent. However, despite service none appears on behalf of the said newly added Respondent No. 4. 13. Mr. Joshi, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 3 while no disputing the stand taken by it as contained in para 6 of the affidavit, submits that the consignor and consignee would have to be made parties to this petition and a comprehensive order passed in lines of the order dated 12th September 2008 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 22731 of 2005 permitting the consignment in question to be auctioned for recovering the detention charges. A reliance is also placed on an order passed by the Supreme Court in Board of Trustees Port of Mumbai v. Transworld Shipping Service (1998) 9 SCC 610 where it was directed that the goods in question shoul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me time, there appears to be no justification for denying release of the containers, which per se do not constitute the case property, to the Petitioner. A distinction has necessarily to be drawn between the consignment contained in the containers and the containers themselves. While the consignment certainly forms subject matter of the criminal case, and of the contract between the consignor and the consignee, it is nobody's case that the containers constitute case property and are required to be detained for the purposes of a criminal case. It has already been noticed that even the customs authorities have no objection to the release of the containers to the Petitioner. 18. Learned counsel for the CONCOR was unable to show to the Court any provision in the Major Ports Act. 1963 that obligates the Petitioner, as a shipping line, to pay the rent for the containers. Even the order passed by the Supreme Court in Board of Trustees Port of Mumbai v. Transworld Shipping Service in para 4 notes the contention of learned counsel for the Petitioner in that case that "there is no liability on the client's part to pay ground rent because the containers are being detained due to non-perform ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
