Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2016 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (11) TMI 464 - HC - CustomsConstitutional validity of Regulation 6(1)(1) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 - ultra-vires the provisions of Customs Act, 1962 - waiver of demurrage charges - Held that: - the power to frame regulations is located in Section 42 (1) and (2) of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994. This court has, in its preceding discussion, held that the above power cannot be questioned, as wide and that as long as Parliamentary intent is discernable, subordinate legislation, which broadly conforms to its objectives, cannot be impeached. In exercise of its powers, Regulation 6 (1) was framed; it specifically obliges service providers not to charge demurrage in certain cases if directed not to do so (“subject to any other law for the time being in force, shall not charge any rent or demurrage on the goods seized or detained or confiscated by the Superintendent of Customs or Appraiser or Inspector of Customs or Preventive officer or examining officer, as the case may be."). Interestingly, the duty not to charge – when imposed by any customs official authorized to do so, is specifically subordinated to other laws (“subject to any other law for the time being in force”). Thus the powers under the Airports Authority Act, 1994. Identical power vests with the Central Government under the AAI Act to issue directions (Section 40). In the event DIAL is of the view that customs authorities’ directions to it to not charge demurrage are unwarranted, it can seek guidance and directions in that regard, from the Central Government. In these circumstances, the grievance that Regulation 6 can potentially render DIAL’s functioning unviable and result in losses to it, has to fail. Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
|