9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 1308X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also indicate the same understanding on the part of both stakeholders; both MbPT and Applicant have understood port dues and anchorage fees as separate charges governed by separate individual clauses of the Tariff notification. Pilotage charges - HELD THAT:- The impugned order does not find any reference to pilotage charges. It is, however, submitted that the order provides for liberty reserved unto the Applicant to raise an issue concerning these charges in case an appeal is filed by MbPT challenging the impugned order. It is submitted that such liberty includes leave to file cross objection about pilotage charges. The liberty reserved for cross objection of the Applicant concerns the issue of charging of half anchorage fees under Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and anchorage charges against Respondent No.1 herein (original Applicant), who is an auction purchaser of the defendant vessel. The parties to this appeal are hereinafter referred to by their nomenclature in the interim application out of which the present appeal arises. 2 The defendant vessel arrived within the port and harbour of Mumbai and was docked at Y1 anchorage on 23 March 2020. After 2 June 2020, it was shifted to Port Lighterage Anchorage and then, from 13 June 2020 onwards, it was at V1/Y anchorage. It remained at this anchorage by the time the vessel, originally arrested on the orders of the Admiralty Court, was ordered to be sold. The Applicant was the successful auction purchaser. The defendant vessel was sold on as is w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istered Tonnage) per hour or part thereof for a foreign going vessel is 0.0047 USD from first day onwards and upto 30 days. If the vessel is docked at such anchorage point for more than 30 days, the applicable rate beyond the 30th day is 0.0118 USD. In this case, the vessel was at V1/Y anchorage with effect from 13 June 2020. More than 30 days had already elapsed, since it was brought to this anchorage, by the time the vessel was sold under orders of this court and purchased by the Applicant under bill of sale dated 9 November 2020. At the time of its sale, the vessel was already paying anchorage fees at the rate applicable beyond 30th day. MbPT, accordingly, charged the Applicant for anchorage at the rate of 0.0118 USD per GRT, which was t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y reason of Section 8 of the Admiralty Act. 5 The argument has no merit. It is quite far fetched to suggest that prior anchorage of the vessel under sale and the rate that it attracts as a result of such prior anchorage, are in the nature of encumbrance for the purposes of anchorage fees to be applied after the date of bill of sale and till the vessel sails at the instance of the purchaser. It is rather a matter pertaining to the condition of the vessel. When the vessel was sold under orders of the court, its condition included its having been docked at the particular anchorage point. The purchaser took the vessel on as is where is basis, that is to say, with this condition. If as a result of such condition, namely, its having been doc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l whether the services are, from the point of view of the user optional in the sense that he may or may not require them or that he has no option except to avail himself of them. If these services are not paid for, the Board may exercise its statutory lien on the goods subject to such services themselves and enforce it. Even if the purchaser, in the present case, can be said to have been driven to make use of the Board s services with effect from the date of bill of sale inasmuch as it was not at his instance that the vessel was docked at the particular anchorage point, he would nevertheless have to pay for the services of anchorage offered by the Board and such payment would have to be at a rate fixed under the scale of rates by the Tariff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .e. charges other than port entry charges) is beside the point. What we are concerned with in the present case is the scale of rates fixed by the Tariff Authority for use of services within the port premises, and that scale separately provides for port dues, which are a one time charge payable upon entry into port, in Clause 2.16 of the notification, whereas anchorage fees are separately provided for lying of the vessel at or alongside any particular anchorage point within the port premises, in Clause 2.15 of the notification. Dealings between parties as also pleadings respectively filed by them also indicate the same understanding on the part of both stakeholders; both MbPT and Applicant have understood port dues and anchorage fees as sepa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
