2016 (10) TMI 25 - HC - Customs

Court upholds demurrage charges, dismisses petition. No grounds for interest or costs.

The court dismissed the writ petition in its entirety, upholding the requirement for the petitioner to pay demurrage charges for the period not covered by ... Waiver of demurrage charges - business of rough gemstones, cutting and polishing thereof, trading in gemstones and export of finished gemstones - import of rough precious stone sapphire (yellow) and rough semi precious stone aquamarine - consignment of rough of yellow sapphire also contained, 224 gm yellow sapphire cut and polished, valued at ₹ 56,000/- at the rate of ₹ 50/- per carat - mistake on the part of staff of exporter - whether demurrage charges be demanded keeping in view that the polished diamond was sent mistakenly by the staff of importer who agreed to it and the fact immediately submitted by importer to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Jaipur? - Held that: - the decision in the case of Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. vs. C.L. Jain Woolen Mills [2001 (4) TMI 83 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] apply. The period during confiscation, charges have been waived, therefore, for the remaining period the petitioner is duty bound to pay the duty demurrage charges - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner. Issues Involved:1. Quashing and setting aside specific annexures (23, 25, and 27).2. Direction to allow re-export of goods and release remaining goods without charging demurrage or other charges.3. Payment of interest at 18% per annum on the value of goods from the date of arrival until release.4. Awarding the cost of litigation and writ petition.5. Awarding any other just and proper relief.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Quashing and Setting Aside Specific Annexures:The petitioner sought an appropriate writ to quash and set aside annexures 23, 25, and 27. The court examined the claim and found no merit in setting aside these annexures. The court concluded that the petitioner's request to quash the annexures was devoid of merit and thus dismissed the writ petition.2. Direction to Allow Re-export of Goods and Release Remaining Goods Without Charging Demurrage or Other Charges:The petitioner requested the re-export of certain goods and the release of remaining goods without charging demurrage or other charges. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. vs. C.L. Jain Woolen Mills, which clarified that customs authorities do not have the power to prohibit or injunct any other authority from charging demurrage charges for storing imported goods. The court noted that the respondent had already waived charges for the period during which the goods were under confiscation (18/12/1996 to 4/9/1999) based on the recommendation of a constituted committee. Therefore, the petitioner was duty-bound to pay demurrage charges for the remaining period.3. Payment of Interest at 18% Per Annum on the Value of Goods from the Date of Arrival Until Release:The petitioner sought interest at 18% per annum on the value of the goods from the date of arrival until their release. The court did not find any provision or justification to grant such interest. The claim for interest was not supported by any legal or factual basis, and thus, the court did not award the requested interest.4. Awarding the Cost of Litigation and Writ Petition:The petitioner requested the cost of litigation and the writ petition. The court, having found the petition devoid of merit, did not find any grounds to award the costs of litigation to the petitioner. Consequently, this request was also dismissed.5. Awarding Any Other Just and Proper Relief:The petitioner sought any other relief deemed just and proper. The court, having thoroughly examined the case, concluded that none of the petitioner's claims had merit. Therefore, no additional relief was granted.Conclusion:The court dismissed the writ petition in its entirety. It upheld the requirement for the petitioner to pay demurrage charges for the period not covered by the waiver and found no grounds to quash the annexures, award interest, or grant litigation costs. The court's decision was guided by the principles established in the Supreme Court's ruling and the specific facts of the case.