9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (4) TMI 125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e imported by the petitioner and, accordingly, eight bills of entry were filled for clearance by the Customs authorities. The allegation of the petitioner is that because of two internal circulars, which are impugned in this petition, Respondent No. 1 is not allotting space for destuffing of all consignments of the importer together, as a result of which demurrage charges had to be paid by the petitioner unnecessarily. The contention is that these circulars permit allotment of space for destuffing of only two consignments at a time for Customs examination and clearance as a result of which demurrage charges escalate and these have to be borne by the petitioner. The petitioner claims that destuffing of these eight consignments was done after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the prothonotary and Senior Master on or before 15-11-1988 which the petitioner has done. The petitioner was also directed to pay to Respondent No. 1 a sum of Rs. 5 lacs on or before 7-11-1988. This payment has also been made by the petitioner. A schedule was specified as to the manner in which the destuffing and the clearance of the goods of eight consignments of the petitioner was to be effected. 3.Mr. Lewis, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the circulars of 10-7-1985 and 12-3-1986, which permit destuffing of only two consignments imported at a time, are without force of law as they have not been issued under any of the provisions of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 (for short, 'the Act'). He submits that a bare perusal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and since they are not notifications, no publication is required under Section 132 of the Act. He further submits that it at all the petitioner is aggrieved with the demurrage charged, it is always open for the petitioner to file an application for exemption or remission of rates or charges under Section 53 of the Act. 5.After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the impugned circulars are merely internal memos sent for information to the authorities concerned in order to free the docks from congestion. Respondent No. 1 have through the affidavit of their Assistant Manager placed on record the dates on which the consignments were received and the date on which the applications for destuffing was made by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m not sitting in appeal over the order of suspension of the Dock Entry Permits. In the words of Lord Justice Diplock in the case of Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service reported in [1984] 3 A.I.R. 935 at page 950, only three grounds have been classified as being subject to control of judicial review viz., illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. That the court may by inclined to take a different view or even a better view of the matter, is not a ground for entertaining a writ petition of the present nature. I cannot substitute my views for the decision taken by the authority concerned in the absence of any illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety. I am not concerned with the decision but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
