2001 (12) TMI 306 - HC - Customs

Import of furnace oil deemed legal; petitioner not liable for demurrage charges; Central Govt to take possession for potential pollution concerns.

The court held that the import of furnace oil by the petitioner was legal based on the standards at the time of import, despite subsequent stricter ... EXIM Policy - Furnace oil - Import - Writ jurisdiction - EXIM Policy Issues Involved:(a) Legality of the import of oil by the petitioner.(b) Liability for demurrage charges.(c) Direction for re-export of the oil.Summary:Re: Question No. 1 - Legality of the Import:The primary issue is whether the imported furnace oil qualifies as waste oil under the Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989 and the Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemicals Rules, 1989. The petitioner imported 468 MTs of fuel oil in September 1999, and the samples were tested multiple times. Initial tests by CRCL indicated impurities, but subsequent tests by Sri Ram Institute showed only nominal acidity. The guidelines dated 12-11-1997 were applicable at the time of import, which allowed certain levels of impurities. However, new guidelines issued in 2001 introduced stricter limits. The court held that the new guidelines could not retroactively affect the import, and the import was legal based on the standards at the time of import. Therefore, the import of the goods in question was legal.Re: Question No. 2 - Liability for Demurrage Charges:The court examined whether the petitioner should bear the demurrage charges despite not being at fault. The Supreme Court in International Airport Authority v. Grand Slam International and Union of India v. Sanjeev Woollen Mills provided precedent on the mandatory nature of demurrage charges. However, the court held that in this case, the customs authorities should bear the charges due to their insistence on the illegality of the import and the resultant delay in clearance. The petitioner was found not to have committed any illegality, and thus, the customs department was directed to bear the demurrage charges.Re: Question No. 3 - Direction for Re-export:Although the petitioner was entitled to certain reliefs, the court decided not to grant the relief of releasing the goods in favor of the petitioner due to potential pollution concerns. The court directed the Central Government to take possession of the goods, with clearance to be given by the Customs Authorities. The goods could be used or destroyed as advised by the Central Pollution Control Board. The customs authorities were also directed to pay any demurrage charges, and the petitioner was not entitled to claim the price or any damages for the goods.Conclusion:The writ petition was disposed of with directions that balanced legal and equitable considerations, ensuring justice for all parties involved.