TMI Blog1980 (3) TMI 254X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bill of entry in respect thereof dated 26-6-1974 for home consumption. In or about August 1974 the Customs Appraiser questioned the validity of import of the said goods on the ground that the same were not covered by the relevant licence. By an endorsement on the bill of entry dated 26-8-1974 the petitioners agreed to abide by the result of decision in similar cases which were pending. The case which was meant to be referred to was that of M/s. Hamilton Industries Pvt. Ltd. which also had imported the same goods. In view of this the bills of entry were returned to the petitioners. As per the practice the petitioners had to present the bills of entry at proper time i.e. after the disposal of the case against M/s. Hamilton Industries Pvt. L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficate for a longer period than the period on which the same was given and also asked for relief against the 3rd respondent which is Bombay Port Trust for release of goods without demurrage for the entire period of 23-8-1974 to 3-12-1975 on the ground that the 3rd respondent cannot charge demurrage if the goods could not be cleared for no fault of the petitioners. 3. The petitioner s claim against the 3rd respondent is covered by a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Port of Bombay v. I.G. Supplying Co. - A.I.R. 1977 Supreme Court 1622. As per the said decision even when an importer is asked to pay demurrage when the goods cannot be cleared without any default on the part of the importer the Port Trust is entitled to claim demurrag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t decision. 7. I have heard Mr. Koticha. Mr. Koticha first gave various grounds as to why the Customs authorities ought to have given the detention certificates for a longer period as applied for by the Petitioners. However, I did not hear Mr. Koticha fully on this point and requested him to make his submissions as to whether if such certificates are granted, he would be entitled to any concession or remission from Respondent No. 3. 8. Mr. Koticha then painted out Bombay Port Trust s scales of rates charged at the Docks and which were in force on July 1, 1975. He relied on proviso (b) under the heading DEMURRAGE FEES in Section III. The proviso is as follows: Goods detained by the Customs Department for special examination invo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ytical or chemical tests other than the ordinary processes of appraisement the Customs authorities must issue a certificate, unless any default occurring thereafter was accumulated to any fault or negligence of the Petitioners, certifying that the goods were detained for the entire period irrespective of the time taken in chemical analysis, cannot be attributable to any fault or negligence on the part of the Petitioners, and that in such an event, the Bombay Port Trust was bound to give the complete remission of demurrage for the entire period so certified. This contention of Mr. Koticha cannot be accepted. Whatever may be the certificate given by the Customs authorities, the special exemption from demurrage granted by the said proviso can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
