TMI Blog1983 (11) TMI 296X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cigarettes during January, 1978. The goods arrived in four consignments in Port of Bombay and the petitioners duly filled in the requisite bills of entry in respect of the four consignments. The last free days in respect of the two consignments was January 21, 1978 and for the remaining two consignments was January 23 and January 24, 1978, respectively. 2. The staff of the Clearing and Forwarding Agents in Bombay Docks went on strike from January 20, 1978 and the strike was over on January 26, 1978. The petitioners claim that they could not clear the goods imported by them because of the strike. The petitioners claim that the striking employees of the Clearing and Forwarding Agents prevented the petitioners to clear the goods with their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of 18% p.a. from the respondents. 3. On behalf of the respondents, Shri P.A.H.D. Sa, Assistant Docks Manager, has filed return sworn on November 25, 1983. The respondents claim that the petitioners are not entitled to seek remission, because in the first instance out of four consignments, two consignments were released by Customs on January 27, 1978 and January 30, 1978, respectively, and that being after the strike was called off, the petitioners cannot complain that they could not remove the imported goods during the period of strike. The respondents also claim that the strike did not affect the petitioners as the petitioners had not engaged any clearing agent for removal of the goods and the goods were removed by the staff of the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng this petition almost after a period of two years from the date of payment of demurrage charges clearly indicates that the petitioners are not prosecuting the remedy expeditiously and with due urgency. The claim made in the petition is for refund of the demurrage charges during the strike period and in my judgment, the preliminary objection raised by the respondents deserves acceptance. 5. Shri Ganesh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, based his claim in the petition on the averments made in paragraph 15 of the petition. The petitioners claim that two firms of ship chandlers, namely M/s. Cawasji Behramji Co. and M/s. James Connel Providers had filed Misc. Petition No. 178 of 1978 and 177 of 1978 in this Court fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
