9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 389X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and FSCU 3497184. 2. Heard Mr.T.Sai Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Mr.Haja Mohideen Gishti, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent; Mr.S.Raghunathan, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent and M/s.Shivakumar and Suresh, learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent. None appears on behalf of the first respondent. Since the second and the fourth respondents are one and the same, the second respondent was deleted. 3. Petitioner in this case is a shipping company and involved in the business of carrying cargoes in the course of imports and exports for hire. It appears that seven containers were hired to individual parties for shipment and they arrived at port of Chennai as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terminal is suffering tariff charges as per the TAMP Orders in force. It is the case of the petitioner that he informed the fourth respondent about the abandonment of the cargo on 13.1.2012 by letter addressed to the fourth respondent, followed by another letter dated 23.4.2012 addressed to the fifth respondent. 6. The present writ petition has been filed for a direction to forbear the respondents 3 to 5 from demanding or collecting any port charges from the petitioner in respect of the seven containers and in support of the plea in the writ petition, the TAMP Order dated 10.11.1999 notified in G.No.104 dated 6.12.1999 and the TAMP Order dated 19.7.2000 notified in G.No.120 dated 28.8.2000 had been relied upon. 7. This court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the container is seized/confiscated by the Customs Authorities and the same cannot be destuffed, within the prescribed time limit of 75 days, the storage charges will cease to apply from the date the customs order release of the cargo subject to lines observing the necessary formalities and bearing the cost of transportation and destuffing. Otherwise, seized/confiscated containers should be removed by the Lines/consignees from the port premises to the Customs bonded area and in that case the storage charge shall cease to apply from the date of such removal." 8. It is the case of the petitioner that beyond 75 days, the respondents 4 and 5 who are licensed to operate under the third respondent cannot demand any charges for the contai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dy of the container after payment of all port charges both in respect of cargo and container. Assuming that the cargo has been abandoned, even in respect of the container they are liable to pay storage charges. Further, clause 3.12.11 provides that in case of failure to take action within the stipulated period, storage charges on container shall be continued to be levied till such time all necessary actions are taken by the shipping lines for destuffing the cargo. In effect the clause 3.12.11 comes with rider that prompt action should be taken by the MLO/Petitioner to avoid payment of storage charges. 11. Even on fact it is apparent that from the date of entry which is set out above, the 75 days period is already over and the first ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tes at which, and a statement of conditions under which, any of the services specified hereunder shall be performed by a Board or any person authorised under section 42 at or in relation to the port or port approaches-- (a) transhipping of passengers or goods between vessels in the port or port approaches; (b) landing and shipping of passengers or goods from or to such vessels to or from any wharf, quay, jetty, pier, dock, berth, mooring, stage or erection, land or building in the possession or occupation of the Board or at any place within the limits of the port or port approaches; (c) cranage or porterage of goods on any such place; (d) wharfage, storage or demurrage of goods on any such place; (e) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the 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. 18. Petitioner's case is based on interpretation of TAMP Notification. In any event, the petitioner is relying upon an earlier Notification which had no relevance to the facts of the present case. It is another matter for the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
