2010 (2) TMI 409 - HC - Customs

Warehousing- Demurrage Charges- Petition seeking quashing of letters demanding 50% of demurrage charges and computation thereof. High Court order as corrected by order 20.12.2005 to be the basis for storage charges. High Court order passed in 2005 attained finality as SLP dismiissed by Supreme Court and not open to respondent to deviate. Held that- petitioner not liable to pay storage charges for period covered by detention certificate. Letter by respondent dated 29.11.2007 seeking payment of charges by 30.11.2007 while such letter itself dispatched on 3.12.2007. Letter granting 50% waiver cannot be rescinded. Prevailing rates at relevant place not applied contrary to own circulars. Delay in complying with court direction not satisfactorily explained and inaction of respondent caused severe prejudice. Calculation of respondent upheld. Consignment directed to be released. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of letters dated 29th November 2007 and 4th January 2008 issued by CWC.
2. Determination of storage charges payable by APML.
3. Waiver of demurrage charges.
4. Compliance with the Bombay High Court's order.
5. Calculation of warehousing charges.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of Letters:
The Petitioner, Apollo Paper Mills Ltd. (APML), sought the quashing of letters dated 29th November 2007 and 4th January 2008, issued by the Central Warehousing Corporation (CWC), which determined the storage charges payable by APML. The charges were Rs.3,00,88,800/- as of 30th November 2007 and Rs.3,54,55,561/- as of 31st December 2007. The court found that the CWC's calculation was inconsistent with the Bombay High Court's order and quashed these letters.

2. Determination of Storage Charges:
APML imported machinery and faced delays due to a strike and customs assessment, leading to high storage charges at CWC's warehouse. APML requested a waiver of demurrage charges, which was initially denied by CWC. The Bombay High Court had directed CWC to compute the warehousing charges based on the rates at Ambernath, not Kalamboli. The Delhi High Court found that CWC's calculations included periods that should have been covered by a detention certificate and were not in compliance with the Bombay High Court's order.

3. Waiver of Demurrage Charges:
The Bombay High Court had quashed CWC's order rejecting APML's waiver application due to gross violation of natural justice. The CWC was directed to reconsider the waiver application and compute charges considering the detention certificate. The Delhi High Court noted that CWC granted a 50% waiver but set an impossible deadline for payment, which APML could not meet due to delayed receipt of the letter. The court held that the waiver decision could not be rescinded based on this.

4. Compliance with the Bombay High Court's Order:
The Bombay High Court's order required CWC to compute warehousing charges based on Ambernath rates and consider the detention certificate period. The Delhi High Court found CWC's calculations deviated from this order, including charges for periods covered by the detention certificate and applying higher rates from Kalamboli. The court emphasized that the CWC must adhere to the Bombay High Court's directive, which had attained finality.

5. Calculation of Warehousing Charges:
The court reviewed the correspondence between APML and CWC and found that the CWC's calculations were inflated and inconsistent with the Bombay High Court's order. APML provided a detailed calculation of charges based on Ambernath rates, which the court found reasonable. The court directed APML to update its figures till 28th February 2010 and submit them to CWC. CWC was ordered to refund any excess amount and release the consignment to APML.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned letters were quashed. APML's calculation of storage charges was accepted, and CWC was directed to refund the balance amount and release the consignment. The court also awarded costs of Rs.25,000/- to APML.