Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2013 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (1) TMI 389 - MADRAS HIGH COURTWrit of Mandamus - forbearing the respondents 3 to 5 from demanding or collecting any port charges from the petitioner in respect seven containers - Petitioner in this case claims that the cargo which arrived at the containers were abandoned by the owners of the cargo and the containers which were lying at the terminal is suffering tariff charges as per the TAMP [Tariff Authority for Major Ports] Orders in force dated 15.5.2009 - Held that:- On a reading of clause 3.12.11 of the TAMP Order dated 15.5.2009 as above it is clear that the demand made by the respondents 4 and 5 is based on the tariff determined by the Tariff Authority for Major Ports in exercise of power under Section 48 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. The petitioner relied upon Section 42(4) of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 to say that no person authorized under sub-section (3) shall charge or recover for such service any sum in excess of the amount specified by the Authority, by notification in the Official Gazette. Section 42(4) of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 reads as that no person authorized under sub-section (3) shall charge or recover for such service any sum in excess of the amount specified by the Authority, by notification in the Official Gazette. Thus find no infraction of the above provision as the TAMP Order is issued from time to time invoking the above provision of law. On a reading of clause 3.12.11 of the TAMP order dated 15.5.2009, the respondents 4 and 5 are justified in demanding the storage charges because it is on the basis of the order of the Tariff Authority for Major Ports. They are not demanding anything in excess other than what has been specified in the TAMP Order. Therefore, the said plea has no basis. Petitioner relied upon section 61 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 which deals with sale of goods after two months if the rates or rent are not paid or lien for freight is not discharged. Section 62 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 deals with disposal of goods not removed from premises of within time limit. These two provisions are relatable to the third respondent. No specific relief is sought for against the third respondent, in terms of Section 61 or 62 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 - Petitioner's case is based on interpretation of TAMP earlier Notification which had no relevance to the facts of the present case - no relief as sought for by the petitioner can be granted as the respondents 4 and 5 are demanding payment in accordance with the TAMP Order dated 15.5.2009 notified in G.No.85 dated 29.5.2009. There is no error or illegality in the same.
|