9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (6) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtificate for the period 8-8-1984 to 9-10-1984. The goods in respect of the first consignment were cleared on November 18, 1984 on the Petitioner paying Rs. 1,99,306.08 as demurrage. The second consignment was cleared by the Petitioner on November 15/16, 1984 on payment of demurrage of Rs. 3,45,604. By this petition the Petitioner seeks refund of Rs. 5,60,000/- from B.P.T. on the ground that the said demurrages were recovered by B.P.T. without authority of law. Secondly, Petitioner seeks a direction against Customs to issue Detention Certificate from the period 8- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the B.P.T. could levy charges under various Scales on all traffic dealt within the areas mentioned in the Docks Scale of Rates. Since the premises at Vidyavihar did not fall within the ambit of the clause dealing with "extent of application" in the Docks Scale of Rates, B.P.T. was not entitled to levy demurrage charges on the Petitioner for the storage of goods at Vidyavihar. In support of his contention the learned Advocate placed reliance on Sections 48 and 52 of Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 and contended that the Docks Scale of Rates can come into force after they are sanctioned by the Government and since in 1984 the sanction of the Government did not exist B.P.T. was not entitled to store the goods of the Petitioner at Vidyavihar and l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be levied. This will not affect the right of B.P.T. to levy and recover the charges. Acquisition of premises by B.P.T. is not the subject covered by Section 52 of the Act. Section 52 lays down that prior sanction of the Central Government shall be obtained by B.P.T. with regard to Scale of Rates and statement of conditions. In other words, aquisition of open place at Vidyavihar does not require prior sanction of the Central Government. It is a matter of Administration of B.P.T. The above Resolution amended Dock Bye-Law which is done by obtaining approval of the B.P.T. Acquistion of open place does not come within the ambit of Section 52. Therefore, there is no merit in the first contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner. Moreov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demurrage. We do not find any merit in this contention also of the Petitioner. 5.As regards the Detention Certificate issued by the Customs, it is contended on behalf of the Petitioner that the Detention Certificate is dated October 31, 1984. However, the Collector had issued Detention Certificate only for the period 8th August, 1984 upto 9th October, 1984. Therefore, the Petitioner claim that he was entitled to benefit of Detention Certificate for the entire period from 8th August, 1984 upto 31st October, 1984. In the present case, it may be mentioned that the Certificate annexed to the Petition indicates the period of detention of the goods from 8th Augu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
