9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (6) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the period 8-8-1984 to 9-10-1984. The goods in respect of the first consignment were cleared on November 18, 1984 on the Petitioner paying Rs. 1,99,306.08 as demurrage. The second consignment was cleared by the Petitioner on November 15/16, 1984 on payment of demurrage of Rs. 3,45,604. By this petition the Petitioner seeks refund of Rs. 5,60,000/- from B.P.T. on the ground that the said demurrages were recovered by B.P.T. without authority of law. Secondly, Petitioner seeks a direction against Customs to issue Detention Certificate from the period 8-8-1984 upto 31-10-1984, on the ground that the Detention Certificate is issued on 31-10-1984 and therefore Customs erred in giving the benefit of Det ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plication" in the Docks Scale of Rates, B.P.T. was not entitled to levy demurrage charges on the Petitioner for the storage of goods at Vidyavihar. In support of his contention the learned Advocate placed reliance on Sections 48 and 52 of Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 and contended that the Docks Scale of Rates can come into force after they are sanctioned by the Government and since in 1984 the sanction of the Government did not exist B.P.T. was not entitled to store the goods of the Petitioner at Vidyavihar and levy the charges of such storage. Shri Dhakephalkar further contended that under Section 48(1)(d) B.P.T. is required to charge for services rendered at or in relation to port or port approach and since at the relevant time the premis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ernment shall be obtained by B.P.T. with regard to Scale of Rates and statement of conditions. In other words, aquisition of open place at Vidyavihar does not require prior sanction of the Central Government. It is a matter of Administration of B.P.T. The above Resolution amended Dock Bye-Law which is done by obtaining approval of the B.P.T. Acquistion of open place does not come within the ambit of Section 52. Therefore, there is no merit in the first contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner. Moreover, services are rendered at or in relation to port or port approaches and for such services B.P.T. is entitled to levy the rate. At what rate the charge is to be claculated is prescribed by the statement of conditions and Scale of Rates ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 31, 1984. However, the Collector had issued Detention Certificate only for the period 8th August, 1984 upto 9th October, 1984. Therefore, the Petitioner claim that he was entitled to benefit of Detention Certificate for the entire period from 8th August, 1984 upto 31st October, 1984. In the present case, it may be mentioned that the Certificate annexed to the Petition indicates the period of detention of the goods from 8th August, 1984 to 9th October, 1984. It is further mentioned that the goods were ready for final release from Customs on 9th October, 1984. The original of Detention Certificate is not produced. It is not clear as to from which documents the Petitioner has prepared Detention Certificate dated 31-10-1984. It is poin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
