Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2014 (12) TMI 229

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d two months therefrom to sell the goods or in any event cause the 78 containers to be released thereafter. At least it was not brought to the notice of this Court that any sum on account of demurrage charges was outstanding as had not been debited to the petitioners’ marine account for the period prior to filing of the writ petition. The period beyond in which the goods were kept in the containers requiring them to be detained was at the instance of the Port Authority when it had no lien and demurrage charges for that period cannot be fastened on the petitioners. The petitioners having admitted their liability to pay de-stuffing charges to the tune of ₹ 6,84,849.80/- on account of cost of de-stuffing 78 containers in terms of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o claim for demurrage against them. 2. The Kolkata Port Trust preferred an appeal which was disposed of by order dated 4th December, 1996 directing, inter alia, the order under appeal was set aside and the matter remanded for hearing on affidavits. Further and other directions were made in the said order requiring the petitioners to deposit a sum of ₹ 14 lakhs with their learned Advocate on record to be invested in a short term fixed deposit, subject to which the Port Authority was to de-stuff the containers whereafter the petitioners would be entitled to remove them without any objection from the Customs or Port Authorities. On 17th February, 1997 the containers upon having been de-stuffed were removed by the petitioners. The peti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the containers only. 5. The said order dated 12th February, 1996 was set aside in appeal preferred by the Port Authority since its grievance was, inter alia, the writ Court had disposed of the writ petition without giving the said Authority opportunity of filing affidavit in the matter. In the circumstances, the Hon ble Appeal Court was not inclined to determine the issue as it was of the view the parties concerned should have been permitted opportunity of filing affidavits. Affidavits have since been filed but the position on facts remains as it was when the said earlier order dated 12th February, 1996 was made. 6. This Court had required the Port Authority to substantiate its claim. Mr. Suhrid Roychowdhury, learned Advocate appe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t of Madras v. K.P.V. Sheikh Mohd. Rowther Co. Pvt. Ltd. Anr.), (2002) 3 Supreme Court Cases 168 = 2002 (140) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) (Om Shankar Biyani v. Board of Trustees, Port of Calcutta Ors.) and (2008) 1 CHN 198 (Natvar Parikh Industries Limited Anr. v. Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta Ors.). He submitted that in Port of Madras the question whether demurrage charges, harbour dues etc. payable to the Port Trust of Madras were to be recovered from the consignee or from the steamer agent was answered by the High Court based on the conclusion that the consignee was liable to pay the charges. Such conclusion met with the approval of the Hon ble Supreme Court. Relying on Om Shankar Biyani he went on to submit that once the ob .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... be made liable to pay demurrage charges, the disagreement by a Division Bench of this Court by the said unreported judgment dated 10th April, 2003 cannot be found to have the effect of setting aside the finding in the said order dated 12th February, 1996 in view of the judgments in Port of Madras and Om Shankar Biyani rendered by the Hon ble Supreme Court and the latter followed by another Divison Bench of this Court in Natvar Parikh Industries Ltd. The position that emerges on the facts in this case is the Port Authority should have sold the goods within two months from 12th February, 1996 being the date of the said earlier order wherein the submissions made on behalf of the Customs were recorded, that their detention of the goods had been .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates