9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (12) TMI 551X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he goods; (c) declare that the plaintiff is not liable to pay the demurrage/detention charges and other incidental and ancillary charges to defendant Nos. 3 and 4 in respect of the consignment covered by B/E No. 221908, dated 19-2-2000 and 224675, dated 25-4-2000 and/or further declare that it is the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 6 who are liable to pay the aforementioned charges. 2.The plaintiff/respondent No. 1 entered into a contract with a company known as M/s. Unique International FZE, Sharjah and purchased furnace oil from that company. This furnace oil was put into drums and packed into 16 containers. The containers were loaded on to shipping vessel and were to be delivered to the plaintiff/respondent No. 1, who was the consignee of these goods, at ICD, Tughlakabad. The goods reached the ICD, Tughlakabad. However, when the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 sought clearance of these goods, the customs authorities refused the permission to clear the consignment on the ground that the furnace oil was a hazardous substance. As the plaintiff/respondent No. 1, because of refusal of permission by the customs authorities, could not get the goods cleared, it filed the aforementioned suit with t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion has been allowed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 10th May, 2002 directing that the containers shall be destuffed within two months and shall be released to the defendants 4 and 5. Present appeal is filed by the CCIL against this order. 5.It may be relevant to point out at this stage that one day before passing of the impugned order, i.e., on 9th May, 2002 the defendants 1 and 2 (respondents 2 and 3 herein), namely, the customs authorities passed an order No. C. No. VIII (ICD)/ 6/Adj/Commr/33/2002/11103 as per which goods in question have been confiscated by the customs authorities under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. 6.Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record, we are of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is unsustainable for more than one reasons. (i) The first and foremost reason to upset the order is that no such application at the behest of the defendant No. 4 was maintainable. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1. The plaintiff/respondent No. 1 made an attempt for release of the goods as an interim measure. Such an application filed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Court would have granted them the order of release of the containers. (iii) The CCIL had also pleaded before the learned Single Judge that the drums were leaking and if the leaking drums are destuffed, the operational area of the CCIL would be adversely affected thereby affecting the working and the operation of the ICD which is already working beyond its operational capacity and which caters to 65% of the Container Traffic of Import and Export from Northern India which also affects Import and Export which are very essential for the economy. We are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge was not correct in brushing aside the aforesaid important aspect of the matter. The CCIL has pleaded paucity of space and its fears to destuff the leaking furnace oil putting into jeopardy not only the working conditions at the ICD but also the life of the personnel working therein and the inhabitants living in colonies and areas adjacent to the ICD. (iv) The learned Single Judge has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Port of Madras through its Chairman v. M/s. KPV Sheikh Mohd. Rowter & Co. Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1996 (82) E.L.T. 174 (S.C.) = AIR 1995 SC 1922, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. This aspect of the matter has not been looked into by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. (b) The learned Single Judge has also overlooked another important aspect, i.e., after the goods are confiscated they vest in the Central Government by virtue of Section 126 of the Customs Act, 1962 which is to the following effect : "On126. confiscation property to vest in Central Government : (1) When any goods are confiscated under this Act, such goods shall thereupon vest in the Central Government. (2) The officer adjudging confiscation shall take and hold possession of the confiscated goods." Thus the confiscated property now vests in the Central Government and it is the prerogative of the Central Government to deal with the goods in question in an appropriate manner and in the process to take decision as to what is to be done with the containers till then the containers cannot be released to the defendants 4 and 5. (c) It may be pointed out at this stage that another submission of the appellant is that the Supreme Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 657 of 1996 entitled Research Foundation for Science v. Union of India, vide order dated 20th May, 1998 ordered that the cus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
