9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 459X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment the empty containers, for the import of which the Petitioner executes a bond in favour of the local customs authorities, are required to be re-exported by it within a reasonable time. 2. The Petitioner states that it has nothing to do with the liabilities attaching to the actual import or export of the consignments carried in the containers. Those obligations are of the respective consignors and consignees, as the case may be, and are governed by the contract entered into between those parties. 3. As far as the present case is concerned, two containers (PCU 3686070/20 and TTNU 3868181/20) were shipped into India against combined transport bills of lading issued by PIL. Pacific International Lines (Pte) Ltd., (the shipping line of whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 2005 dated 16th July, 2005 under Sections 406, 120 and 120B IPC against the consignor. The goods in the two containers were inspected by the police in the presence of the customs authorities, the representatives of the Petitioner, CONCOR, the CHA, the importer etc. After inspection a seizure memo was prepared and the goods were given in superdari to the representative of CONCOR. The containers were re-sealed by the police. 6. The Petitioner was however concerned about the delay in unloading of the consignment from the containers and about re-exporting the two containers in accordance with the bonds, furnished by it to the customs authorities. 7. Meanwhile, the Petitioner was questioned by the Anti Forgery Branch of the Economic Offence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at case. Further, reliance is placed upon the order dated January, 2007 passed by a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No. 8792 of 2006 where, in the background of shipment of similar consignments of similar aluminium ingots from Lagos in Nigeria, a direction was issued to release the containers to the shipping line. 10. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent No. 2, Assistant Commissioner (Preventive), Department of Customs on 5th December 2008 in which it is stated as under : "It is submitted that the containers bearing Nos. PC-3686070 and TINU-3868181 have never been seized/detained by the answering respondent. The answering respondent had already intimated the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (SIIB), ICD, TKD, New ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the container was re-sealed by the police. The goods are lying in the container. The answering respondent has no objection if the goods are taken either by the importer or Customs to their bounded warehouse and the containers are released after making their payments." 12. At the previous hearing on 28th August, 2009 this Court had impleaded the Anti Forgery Branch, Economic Offence Wing, Crime Branch of Delhi Police as a Respondent. However, despite service none appears on behalf of the said newly added Respondent No. 4. 13. Mr. Joshi, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 3 while no disputing the stand taken by it as contained in para 6 of the affidavit, submits that the consignor and consignee would have to be made parties to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms authority has made it clear that the investigations undertaken by the Department of Customs has already been completed, that "no customs angle is involved" and that there can be no objection to release of the two containers to the Petitioner. Therefore as far as the customs department is concerned, they have no objection to the prayer of the petition being granted. 17. As Far as the CONCOR is concerned, it has categorically stated on affidavit that it too has no objection to the empty containers being returned to the Petitioner, "after the goods are taken either by the importer or customs to their warehouses and the containers are released after making their payments." However, learned counsel for the CONCOR repeatedly insisted that thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en the order passed by the Supreme Court in Board of Trustees Port of Mumbai v. Transworld Shipping Service in para 4 notes the contention of learned counsel for the Petitioner in that case that "there is no liability on the client's part to pay ground rent because the containers are being detained due to non-performance of the statutory duty of the customs authority and also the Port Trust." After noting the said submission, the Supreme Court observed that "all these questions must be finally decided by the High Court." Therefore the said order cannot be an authority for the proposition that in a case like the present one, the liability to pay the detention charges or the rent should be fastened on to the shipping line. 19. The order pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
