9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (10) TMI 49X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the port through which the containers were imported. The fourth respondent, the Container Corporation of India, Tughlakabad, New Delhi, is responsible for the handling of the containers and smooth movement of all containers in India. 3.The petitioners say that for the purposes of clearance of import and export of cargo at New Delhi there is a Customs area called "Inland Container Depot" ("ICD for short") situated at Pragati Maidan. An ICD is declared and notified as a "Customs Port" within the meaning of Section 2(12) of the Act. Ships carrying cargo discharge containers at any port in India and thereafter from the port to the ICD the containers carrying the cargo are transhipped as per the provisions of Section 54 of the Act. On arrival at the ICD, the goods are cleared in accordance with the provisions of Section 55 read with the other relevant provisions of the Act as are applicable to goods cleared at the Port of first importation or discharge. At the time of transhipment from the port of discharge to the ICD, the 2nd Petitioners, as agents for the ship owners, have to execute a Bond/Undertaking to re-export/reship the containers. 4.The 1st petitioner inter alia, operate c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntainers were likely to be put up for auction in the month and thereafter once the goods were sold/disposed of the said containers would be released. 8.By a letter dated 11th January, 1993, the Northern India Steamer Agents Association also made a representation to Respondent No. 2 on behalf of its members Lines firm that more than 150 containers were held up at ICD New Delhi and requested that such containers be de-stuffed and the cargo taken out therefrom. 9.There was no response from respondent No. 2 to the said letter dated 11th January, 1993. The 2nd petitioner, by a letter dated 22nd February, 1993 (with a copy marked to the Central Board of Excise and Customs), requested respondent No. 2 to de-stuff the containers and to release the same. It was pointed out by the 2nd petitioner that the 1st petitioner was incurring leasing charges on a daily basis for the last two to three years at the rate of U.S. Dollars 2 per day. 10.By a letter dated 22nd April, 1993, in reply to the said letter dated 22nd February, 1993, the Deputy Collector of Customs informed the 2nd petitioners that the goods contained in two of the containers were ripe for disposing of and were to be soon put ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent requesting the return of the said four containers after destuffing the same. The petitioners has received no reply to the same till date. 17.In this writ petition, notice was issued on 6-7-1995 for 6-9-1995. On 6-9-1995, respondents 1 to 3 and 5 sought time to obtain instructions. On 28-9-1995, counsel for respondents 1 to 3 and 5 appeared. Counsel for 4th respondent was also present. Arguments were heard. 18.According to the respondents, they have indeed no objection to return the 9 containers but they have difficulty in not having other containers of their own into which the goods could be removed. The customs case against the importer of the goods is still pending. Though the petitioners are not concerned with the validity of the import/export of goods, the deficiency of spare containers is the only reason for not returning or releasing the petitioner's containers. 19.Now the appellant is bound under (Annexure A) executed in favour of the President of India to take back the containers and re-export the same. Even the Assistant Collector, Customs, Delhi in his reply dated 12-10-1992 (Annexure D) to 2nd petitioner admitted : "This office is in receipt of your office l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 994 on the above subject. Since the containers are in the custody of the Custodians, this office has no objection in destuffing the containers if the containers have safe place for the destuffed goods. You are therefore, requested to take up the matter with the custodians. As regards the containers of M/s. Mehra Associates, this case is pending adjudication with the Collector of Customs (Judicial), New Customs House, New Delhi. Since the permission of the adjudication authority is essential for getting the containers destuffed, you may approach him for necessary permission to get the containers destuffed in the safe custody of the custodian (COMCOR)." In between, we find several demands by the appellant for return of the containers. 20.Learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed before us the CBE C. Circular No. 84/95, dated 25-7-1995 in regard to Containers to be emptied and released when cargo is detained for a long period. Paras 2, 3 and 4 thereof read as follows : The matter has been examined by the Board and it is observed"2. that at times the customs is detaining the imported cargo alongwith containers in which it has been unloaded for the purpose of investi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... day is about $ 3 and that for 5 years, the hire charges for the 9 containers would have amounted to several lakhs of rupees. The petitioner is also bound, as per Bombay Customs authorities to re-export the containers. The respondents have kept the containers for 5 long years. Petitioners say that they are suffering damages at $ 3 per day per container because of rate of hire charges payable and also loss of profit that might accrued to them by use of the containers in their business. In our view, there is no reasonable statutory or legal basis to continue the further detention of the containers. Even as per the CBE C Circular, the detention is for an unduly long period. 23.A point also arose during the course of arguments of the respondent's counsel that the respondents might claim that they are not liable for to pay any damages to the writ petitioner. If indeed, the respondents are likely to contend that they are not liable for damages then the need for directing return of these containers is indeed very much necessary. 24.We are, therefore, constrained to observe that the respondents have taken unduly long time to return/release the containers to the petitioners and the per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
