9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 93X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bear the demurrage charges in respect of the goods. 2. Notice of the appeal was issued and on the application of the appellant for interim relief, it was vide order dated 31st May, 2004 directed that the release of the consignment would be subject to the final outcome of the appeal. Though during the hearing on 19th August, 2004 it was pointed out that despite the order dated 31st May, 2004, the consignment in question had not been released, but it is recorded in the order dated 21st January, 2010 that the goods stood released to the respondent no.1. In the subsequent order dated 18th March, 2010, it is also recorded that the goods have already been utilized by the respondent no.1 3. None appeared for the respondents when this matter was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no.3 and the said Bill of Entry had been picked up by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), as a sister concern of respondent no.3 was found to be involved in some Customs offence case; (f). that though it was the contention of the respondent no.1 that it is the holder of the original Bill of Lading and as per law is the owner of the goods and is duty bound to file the Bill of Entry and should be allowed to file the Bill of Entry so that assessment could be made and duties could be paid on the said goods as they were suffering heavy demurrage, but the appellant did not allow the respondent no.1 to file the Bill of Entry to get the goods assessed and pay the duties. Impugning the aforesaid stand of the appellant, the writ petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was further pleaded that the respondent no.1 had gone into a non-bona fide deal and was trying to get the goods cleared which were actually liable for confiscation under Section 111 (O) of the Customs Act. It was yet further pleaded that the respondent no.1 was in collusion with the foreign seller and the respondent no.3 was trying to get the offending goods cleared fraudulently. 6. The learned Single Judge, in the impugned judgment found / observed held:- (i). that the subject goods were originally imported by respondent no.3 and reached India sometime in February, 2001; (ii). the import of the goods was not contrary to law; (iii). however the respondent no.3 abandoned the goods and did not make the payment to the foreign seller for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No.3. It is further contended that the matter is no longer res integra. Attention in this regard in invited to: (i) International Airports Authority of India Vs. Grand Slam International (1995) 3 SCC 151, holding that an authority created under a statute even if is the custodian of the imported goods because of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, would be entitled to charge demurrage for the imported goods in its custody and make the importer or consignee liable for the same even for the period during which he / it was unable to clear the goods from the customs area, due to fault on the part of the Customs Authorities or other authorities who might have issued detention certificate owning such fault; (ii) Judgment dated 28th March, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
