9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1462X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he High Court instead of 15-1-2015. The ends of justice would be subserved by directing that no demurrage charges or rent is payable on the aforesaid goods by the appellant to respondent No. 4. At the same time, respondent No. 4 would be entitled to auction those goods and whatever money is received as a result of that auction, can be appropriated by respondent No. 4. Appeal disposed off. - Civil Appeal No. 10823 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 24-8-2017 - A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, JJ. Shri Gaurav Sharma, AOR, Upender Thakur and Virender Singh, Advocates, for the Petitioner. Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG, S/Shri A.K. Panda, Senior Advocate, Sarvam Ritam Khare, B. Krishna Prasad, AORs, A.K. Verma, Siddhartha Yadav, Vibhu Verma, H.P. Rao, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learance after inspection of these goods with the opinion that the goods are not hazardous in nature. After receiving the said clearance, the Customs Authorities assessed the goods and permitted the appellant to clear the goods by order dated 12-1-2015. Thereafter, the appellant approached respondent No. 4, which is the Customa Cargo Service Provider appointed under the Customs Act by the Customs Authorities, for clearance of the goods as the goods in the meantime were warehoused with respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 4, however, demanded the demurrage charges for getting those goods, from the date of its arrival till the date of clearance. According to the appellant, no such demurrage charges were payable inasmuch as it was not its fault th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainst this part of the order. 5. We may record that insofar as the respondents are concerned, they have accepted the judgment and, thus, there is no challenge to the findings of the High Court that the goods were wrongly detained/seized by the Customs Authorities. It is in this backdrop that the question is to be decided as to whether relief of non-payment of charges should have been restricted till 15-1-2015. 6. It may be mentioned here that when the appellant had approached respondent No. 4 for clearance of goods after assessment orders were passed on 12-1-2015, respondent No. 4 had stated that a sum of ₹ 7.67 crores is payable as demurrage charges on the said goods. The value of the goods so imported was ₹ 7 crores. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
