9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 981X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld, therefore, not apply to the present case – Relying upon M/s. Dewan Steel Industries v. Union of India [2013 (9) TMI 180 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] - 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 2008, such Regulations will not c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd 23-5-2012 (Annexure P-10) and for refund of demurrage charges recovered from the petitioner by respondents No. 3 and 4, at the time of release of his goods. 2. Counsel for the petitioner relies upon Regulation 6(1) of Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulations, 2009 to contend that as sub-clause (1) thereof provides that the custom cargo service provider shall not charge any rent or demur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case is squarely covered against the petitioner by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in CWP No. 1825 of 2011 decided on 13-5-2013, M/s. Dewan Steel Industries v. Union of India and Others . 5. We have heard counsel for the parties, perused the Regulation, the impugned orders as well as the judgment in M/s. Dewan Steel Industries (supra) and are not inclined to grant any relief to the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p of the goods vested in the Revenue after confiscation. Such provision though is between the Custodian and the Revenue; still it does not absolve the petitioner to pay the demurrage charges. The payment of demurrage charges is 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 has to be paid by it. It does not contemplate t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt in International Airports Authority of India etc. v. M/s. Grand Slam International Ors. etc. (1995) 3 SCC 151 = 1995 (77) E.L.T. 753 (S.C.) and Trustees of Port of Madras v. Nagavedu Lungi Co. Others (1995) 3 SCC 730 = 1995 (80) E.L.T. 241 (S.C.), we do not find any merit in the present petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. 6. In this view of the matter, finding no merit in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
