9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 180X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which were called as ‘Custodian’ - It was the Custodian, who was not to charge any rent or demurrage on the goods detained by the Customs Department - But the Customs Department was required to pay the rent to the Custodian after the ownership of the goods vested in the Revenue after confiscation - Such provision though was between the Custodian and the Revenue; still it does not absolve the petitioner to pay the demurrage charges - The payment of demurrage charges was not a pre-condition for storage of goods as per clause 15. But after the goods vests with the Revenue, the rent of the goods had to be paid by it - It does not contemplate the situation where after adjudication process the goods do not vests with the State, but vests with the importer - In such a situation, the importer would be liable to pay demurrage charges, as owner of the goods stored in the Warehouse - The guidelines do not provide for demurrage free storage even for the revenue. The scope of the Regulations is wider than the Circular, as it prohibit the Customs Cargo Service Provider to charge any amount on the goods seized or detained. But since the goods were seized in the year 2000, such Regulations will ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... directed the respondents to release the goods after effecting mutilation. The Revenue s appeal before this Court bearing CUSAP No.19 of 2008 remained unsuccessful vide order dated 28.08.2008. The petitioner claims that the goods in question are scrap and value of scrap has substantially increased during the last ten years, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the value of the goods. The petitioner has also averred that the material is not available with the respondents. In reply dated 10.03.2011 to a miscellaneous application, it is inter alia asserted that the goods are lying with the custodian and the payment of ground rent is pending against the petitioner. The petitioner is firstly required to discharge appropriate rent liability to the custodian and take the release of the goods. It is also stated that the petitioner never approached the respondents for getting the goods mutilated to get the goods released after payment of ground rent. Subsequently, an additional affidavit of Shri Sukhchain Singh, Assistant Commissioner, CFS, Ludhiana has been filed. It has been mentioned that the seized goods were allowed to be cleared on provisional basis immediately after seizure on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dian after the ownership of the goods vests in the Government after confiscation. The rate of rent for such goods shall be fixed by the Commissioner in consultation with CPWD or Local Revenue or Rent Control authorities; Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 1. Short title and commencement (1) These regulations may be called the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009. (2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette. 2. Definitions (1) In these regulations, unless the context otherwise requires xx xx (b) Customs Cargo Services provider means any person responsible for receipt, storage, delivery, dispatch or otherwise handling of imported goods and export goods and includes a custodian as referred to in section 45 of the Act and pesons as referred to in sub-section (2) of section 141 of the said Act; xxx xxx xxx 6. Responsibilities of Customs Cargo Service Provider (1) The Customs Cargo Service provider shall xx xx xx (l) subject to any other law for the time being in force, shall not charge any rent or demurrage on the goods seized or detained or confiscated by the prope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he importers. The writ petitions were allowed. It is the said order, which was challenged by the International Airports Authority of India and the Central Warehousing Corporation before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court after considering all the applicable provisions of law held to the following effect: 39. In any event, the provisions of the Customs Act under which the said Customs public notice was issued may be examined. Section 8 empowers the Collector of Customs to approve proper places in any Customs port of Customs airport for the unloading and loading of goods and to specify the limits of any Customs area. Section 33 debars the unloading of imported goods at any place other than a place approved under section 8. Section 34 states that imported goods shall not be unloaded from any conveyance except under the supervision of a proper officer. Section 45 reads thus: "Restrictions on custody and removal of imported goods (1) Save as otherwise provided in any law for the time being in force, all imported goods unloaded in a customs area shall remain in the custody of such person as may be approved by the Collector of Customs until they are cleared for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Following the said judgment, the Supreme Court in Trustees of Port of Madras case (supra), observed as under: We have heard learned Counsel for the parties in the appeal. A three Judge Bench of this Court in International Airports Authority of India v. M/s. Grand Slam International Ors., 1995 SCC (3) 151, has ruled that the importer- consignee of goods cannot avoid his liability to pay demurrage charges and other incidental charges in respect of its goods illegally detained in the customs area of the Airport by the Customs Authorities under the Customs Act. The said ruling of this Court as regards liability for demurrage charges and other incidental charges by importer-consignee of goods illegally detained in the customs area of the Airport by the Customs Authorities applies to the liability to pay demurrage charges or incidental charges by the exporter-consignor of goods illegally detained in the customs area of the sea-port by the Customs Authorities under the Customs Act, for such goods illegally detained by the Customs Authorities, the fact that they belonged to either the importer-consignee or exporter-consignor does not make any difference. In Sujana Steels ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lcutta AIR 1972 SC 542 while quashing the order of confiscation passed by the Customs authorities opined that there would have been no difficulty in directing release of the goods had the same been in the custody of the Customs authorities. Since the goods were in the possession of the Port Commissioners, who had a lien over the goods for rent and other charges, the Supreme Court was pleased to observe that someone would have to pay the port charges before the goods could be removed and since the importer was not to blame for the delay in removal of the goods which had been illegally detained by the Customs authorities, it would be only fair and just for the Customs authorities, who were responsible for the situation, to bear the burden for paying port charges. The Customs authorities having accepted the order of the CEGAT dated 29.06.1999 and having issued Certificate for Clearance of the goods dated 05.10.1999 should own the responsibility of paying detention and storage charges for the goods from 16.10.1996. It will be totally unjust and unreasonable on the part of the Customs authorities to content: Let the petitioner company pay storage and demurrage charges first and then ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
