TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 393X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... principle. The Port Trust was in appeal against the order of the Single Judge directing the release of half the cargo against a payment of ₹ 25 lakhs. The Division Bench in appeal directed the release of the entire cargo against a payment of ₹ 50 lakhs, placing the Port Trust in a position which is worse off than under the interim order. We are hence constrained to interfere with the order of the Division Bench, though it arises in interlocutory proceedings because of the evident error. The Division Bench has ignored the statute, the binding precedents of this Court and acted contrary to judicial norms. Instead of remanding the proceedings back to the Division Bench for reconsideration of the appeal and since the writ petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... luding obtaining customs clearance. In the event that the first and second respondents are held entitled to any refund under the final directions of the High Court after the petition is heard, the High Court would be at liberty to direct the refund of the excess amount collected, if any, together with interest. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Civil Appeal Nos. 3556-3558 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 29-10-2020 - Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee, JJ. Shri Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Advocate, A.V. Rangam, AOR, Buddy A. Ranganadhan, Ms. Stuti Krishn and M. Thangadurai, Advocates, for the Petitioner. Shri Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Pallavi Pratap and Arvind Kumar Gupta, AORs, for the Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Port Trust. The Port Trust carried the matter in appeal before the Division Bench. By an order of the Division Bench dated 1 October, 2020 [2020 (374) E.L.T. 724 (Cal.)], the first and second respondents have been permitted to remove the entirety of the goods, subject to the payment of an amount of ₹ 50 lakhs. 4. The Port Trust moved this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. 5. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants with Mr. Buddy Ranganathan, Learned Counsel, submitted that the direction of the Division Bench breaches the lien of the Port Trust under Sections 58 and 59 of the Major Port Trusts Act 1963. He submits that by the decisions of this Court, the port authorities have b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rgo against a payment of ₹ 75 lakhs (as against ₹ 50 lakhs directed by the Division Bench) and no purpose would be served by allowing the cargo of timber to lie in the dock area. He urged that the Port authorities are refusing to comply with Circulars for the waiver of port charges during the pandemic. 7. The grievance of the Port Trust against the order of the Division Bench is legitimate. The Port Trust has a statutory lien on the goods, for unpaid charges under the provisions of Sections 58 and 59 of the Act. The decisions of this Court in International Airports Authority of India v. Grand Slam International [(1995) 3 SCC 151 = 1995 (77) E.L.T. 753 (S.C.)] and in Om Shankar Biyani v. Board of Trustees of Port of Kolkata [( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be disposed of, this Court has heard the rival submissions on an appropriate interim arrangement. Mr. Dave submitted that the consignment of goods may be allowed to be cleared, since the goods were imported for business, subject to the first and second respondents being put on terms. Mr. Rohatgi submitted that if the entire consignment is sought to be cleared, this has to be against the payment of port charges and dues for the entire consignment. There is merit in the submission of the Port Trust. The Port Trust cannot be relegated to pursue the importer for the recovery of its dues after the goods have been cleared and removed from the dock premises. The charges payable to the Port Trust have to be duly paid before clearance in view of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
