9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 1300X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the respective parties and perused the record. 2. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by Goodrich Maritime Pvt. Ltd. in the capacity of shipping agent to challenge the order passed by the learned single Judge dated 01.09.2006, whereby the learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition noticing that the challenge to the action on the part of Kandala Port Trust in levying the 'container storage charges' cannot be said to be suffering from any error of law, for the simple reason that the imported goods were confiscated by the custom authorities. It seems that the orders of confiscation of imported goods, transported in 7 containers subject matter of consideration herein, were passed on 21.03.2005, 22.03.2005 and 31.03.2005 by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the appropriate forum. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner based on the decision of the Apex Court in Chairman, Board of Trustees, Cochin Port Trust vs. Arebee Star Maritime Agencies Private Limited and Others [(2021) 11 SCC 641], that the containers did not fall within the meaning of the 'goods' and therefore, the confiscation order dated 24.3.2005, as also other similar orders were bad in law, is of no benefit to the petitioner. 5. The fact remains that the goods as also the containers were confiscated by orders passed in writing by the custom authorities by exercising powers under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962. We are not called upon, in the instant case, to examine the validity of the orders passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontainers to the petitioners. We may note that this letter sent by the petitioner has not been brought on the record of the instant appeal, which has been written by the petitioner during the pendency of the appeal. 8. We may further take note of inter-departmental communication dated 28.01.2001 of the Traffic Department, which records that the custom authorities had allowed de-stuffing of the containers containing war/explosive material under Customs supervision at the location indicated therein. It was directed therein that the matter be taken with the Civil Engineering Department to fence the cargo de-stuffed in the interest of safety. The details of the containers de-stuffed have been provided in the said letter. It further records the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ort Trust became custodian of the containers as well as confiscated goods. Clause-18 of the said notification categorically provides that the custodian shall not charge any rent, demurrage on the goods detained by the Customs department under the Customs Act. No ground rent can be levied on the petitioner shipping agent, once the Kandala Port Trust became the custodian of the goods with the confiscation by the Customs department. We find inherent fallacy in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, inasmuch as, the said notification only decides the liability of the Kandala Port Trust for being custodian of the Custom department and Clause 18 of the said notification can only be interpreted to mean that the Kandala Port Trust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Kandala Port Trust for demand of ground-rent charges, is of no benefit to the petitioner, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, as noted hereinabove.
14. In view of above discussion, we dispose of the instant appeal with the observation that the Kandala Port Trust shall provide revised bills to the petitioner in view of the observations made hereinabove within a period of two weeks from today. On receipt of the said bills, the petitioners shall be under obligation to make necessary payments within the time provided by the Kandala Port Trust, failing which it would be open for the Kandala Port Trust to take appropriate action strictly in accordance with the law. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
