9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (4) TMI 120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... $ 475 PMT. Notice for adjudication was issued by the Customs Authorities and as the matter was under adjudication, the goods were not cleared for home consumption and they were warehoused with the Central Warehousing Corporation (in short referred to as the CWC). In the meantime, another consignment containing the acrylic scrap was imported by the petitioner vide the Bill of Lading No. CDHP 65703, dated 28-6-1993 and Bill of Entry No. 154441, dated 6-9-1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Second Consignment). The petitioner presented the bill of entry for home consumption and after inspection of the goods by the Customs Authorities and its assessment by them, a total duty of Rs. 5,41,016/- was imposed by the customs department. On deposit of the aforesaid duty on 17-9-1993, the Customs Authorities made an endorsement on the bill of entry "the goods passed out of customs charge". Despite the payment of the customs duty and despite the entry having been made by the customs department that the goods have passed out of customs charge, the delivery of the same was not given to the petitioner by the respondent-CWC on the ground that by 17-9-1993 a sum of Rs. 1,60,000/- was due to the res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e up for hearing before the Court on 5-11-1993, the Court observed that prima facie it was of the view that the petitioner was not liable to pay the storage charges to the Warehousing Corporation but the petitioner has agreed to furnish the bank guarantee for the amount claimed by the respondent. In respect of second consignment, the Court directed the respondents to release the petitioner's goods without payment of any further charges to the respondents. As regards the third consignment consisting of two containers covered by the Bill of Entry No. 108884, the Court directed that the petitioner could get it cleared on payment of the customs duty, which was stated to have been paid, and warehousing charges till the date of delivery. In terms of the orders of the Court, delivery of four containers covered by the second consignment was given to the petitioner, however, delivery of two containers covered by the third consignment was not taken by the petitioner as they were not agreeable to pay the warehousing charges of the third consignment on the ground that the goods were not warehoused by the petitioner but were detained by the respondent-CWC of their own because of non-payment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds and also imposed penalty. The order of confiscation was held by the High Court to be illegal and the direction was given to the Customs Department to release the goods without payment of any detention and demurrage charges. The Shipping Corporation, which under the Bill of Lading had a lien over the goods, until the dues were paid, were not impleaded in the proceedings before the High Court. The Special Leave Petition filed by the Customs Authorities against the High Court order was dismissed. Since the goods were not cleared even then, the owner again approached the High Court. Observing that the High Court had absolved the owner of any liability to pay demurrage charges, the High Court directed the Customs Authorities and the Carriers to decide if the carriers were entitled to any detention or demurrage charges and further directed that in case any such charges were to be paid, they should be paid by the Customs Department and that after such payment, the carriers would release the goods. The order of the High Court directing the Customs Department to pay detention and demurrage charges was challenged in appeals before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court on these facts held t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... harges at the rate fixed under any law for the time being in force or where no rates are so fixed, at such rate as may be fixed by the Commissioner of Customs. It further provides that if any rent or warehouse charges are not paid within 10 days from the date when they become due, the warehouse keeper may, after notice to the owner of the warehoused goods and with the permission of the proper officer cause to be sold such sufficient portion of the goods as the warehouse-keeper may select. A reading of Sections 48 and 63 clearly show that the lien, if any, which the warehouse keeper may have, can only be on the goods, which have been warehoused and stored with the consent of the owner and not on any other goods. For non-payment of the warehouse charges, provisions has been made in Sections 48 and 63 of the Act to dispose of the goods by auction so as to recover the amount that may be due to the warehouse keeper. The contention of learned Counsel for the respondent is that as the goods were under adjudication, the Warehousing Corporation could not auction the goods under Sections 48 and 63 of the Act so as to recover its charges and it was, therefore, within the powers of CWC to deta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
