9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (2) TMI 69X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the 31st January, 1984 when a sum of Rs. 1,98,009.38P. was paid on account of wharf rent against a wharf rent bill issued by the Calcutta Port authorities. The goods were ultimately released by the Customs authorities on the 23rd February, 1984. 5. The Respondent No. 1, thereafter, applied to the Customs authorities for a wharf rent exemption certificate as the goods had been detained under Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962 for special examination and test for which the Respondent No. 1 was not responsible. 6. Pending the issue of the wharf rent exemption certificate the Respondent No. 1 under cover of its letter dated the 23rd June, 1984 submitted a claim bill or an application for refund of wharf rent paid in respect of the said goods as aforesaid and called upon the Calcutta Port authorities to register its claim. A letter from the Respondent No. 4 dated the 28th July, 1984 authorising the Respondent No. 1 to receive the amount of refund against its claim bill on behalf of the clearing agent was also forwarded. 7. Subsequent thereto, the Customs authorities issued a wharf rent exemption certificate in favour of the Respondent No. 1. It was recorded in the certificate, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent No. 1 for refund and to make payment of the said claim. 13. It was contended in the application of the Respondent No. 1 that the appellant was all along aware that the Respondent No. 4 was acting as the agents of the Respondent No. 1. The Respondent No. 1 effected the payment of wharf rent routed through the Respondent No. 4 and refund of the excess rent paid was to be made to the Respondent No. 1 through the Respondent No. 4. The appellant at all material times knew or be deemed to have known that the Respondent No. 4 had no right, title and interest in the said wharf rent. 14. It was contended further that the action of the appellant in not releasing the claim of the Respondent No. 1 assessed and settled at Rs. 1.36 lakhs was arbitrary and unreasonable as nothing was due and owing from the Respondent No. 1 to the appellant and such action was based on irrelevant and extraneous consideration. The appellant being a creature of statute had to act in accordance with law. The appellant had proceeded without authority of law and the impugned decision of the appellant violated the rights of the Respondent No. 1 under the Constitution and deprived the Respondent No. 1 of pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t taken any other steps against the Respondent No. 4 for realisation of its alleged dues nor revoked the licence of the respondent No. 4. 19. The said application was disposed of by an order passed by the first court on the 11th December, 1986, directing the appellant to pay to the Respondent No. 1 a sum of Rs. 1,36,000/- on the basis of wharf rent exemption certificate issued by the Customs authorities without issuing any no objection certificate to the Respondent No. 4. The appellant was given liberty to take steps for realisation of their outstanding dues from the Respondent No. 4. The order was passed subject to any other order which might have been passed in any other proceedings in this Court on the application of the Respondent No. 4 against the appellant in respect of such demand. 20. The present appeal is from the said order dated the 11th December, 1986. 21. It is recorded that Union of India, the Respondent No. 3, did not appear in this appeal. It is recorded further that Union of India did not also appear at the hearing of the writ petition before the first court. At the instance of the appearing parties, the appeal was treated as in the day's list on the 29th Jan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 36. Power of Board to undertake certain works.- (1) Board may undertake to carry out on behalf of any person any works or services or any class of works or services, on such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon between the Board and the person concerned. Section 42. Performance of services by Board or other person. - (2) A Board may, if so requested by the owner, take charge of the goods for the purpose of performing the service or services and shall give a receipt in such form as the Board may specify. Section 49. Scale of rates and statement of conditions for use of property belonging to Board. - (1) Every Board shall, from time to time, also frame a scale of rates on payment of which, and a statement of conditions under which, any property belonging to, or in the possession or occupation of, the Board, or any place within the limits of the port or the port approaches may be used for the purposes specified. Section 58. Time for payment of rates on goods. - Rates in respect of goods to be landed shall be payable immediately on the landing of the goods and rates in respect of goods to be removed from the premises of a Board, or to be shipped for export, or to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts Nos. 1 and 2 contended on other hand that, admittedly, the Respondent No. 1 was the consignee of the said goods and had imported the same for the purpose of home consumption. There was no dispute that the Respondent No. 4 had been engaged the clearing agent by the Respondent No. 1 and the appellant had dealt with the Respondent No. 4 as such agent of the Respondent No. 1. 28. He next submitted that the said goods had been detained at the Calcutta Port by the Customs authorities for the purpose of special examination and/or chemical test for assessment of duty. This was established by the wharf rent exemption certificate issued to the respondent by the Customs authorities and the appellants could not and were not entitled to dispute the same. Under the notification of the appellants prescribing the scale of rates and schedule of charges, the appellants were bound to grant exemption of wharf rent in terms of the certificate issued by the Customs authorities. It was not the case of the appellants that such exemption was not available in respect of the said goods. In fact, the exemption has been assessed and settled at Rs. 1.36 lakhs as stated in the writ petition. The same had n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1984 by the Respondent No. 1. 33. In view of the aforesaid we hold that the appellant was not entitled to challenge the locus standi of the Respondent No. 1 or to contend that only the Respondent No. 4 could be treated as the owner of the said goods and that payment of wharf rent in respect of the said goods had been made by the Respondent No. 4 on its own account. There is nothing in the said Act of 1963, the Bye-laws promulgated or any other Rule or Notification precluding the actual owner of goods cleared through the Calcutta Port to prefer claims in respect of the same to the appellant. Under Section 59 of the said Act of 1963, the appellant has been given a right of lien for its rates and rents against the goods on which such rates and rents have accrued. Such lien, in our view, cannot be extended to other goods belonging to other persons. The position would remain the same in respect of payment made on account of rent and rates paid in respect of any particular consignment. If such rates and rents have been paid in excess the appellant, in our view, cannot shift its claim in respect of other goods belonging to other parties on such excess amount paid either under the Act o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
