Court quashes order on demurrage charges, citing lack of fair hearing. Remitted for fresh consideration.

The court quashed the impugned order confirming penal demurrage charges, citing lack of proper consideration and fair hearing for the petitioner. The matter was remitted back to the respondent for fresh consideration, with directions to provide the petitioner a fair opportunity to present their case within eight weeks.

---

---

Issues: Challenge to impugned order levying penal demurrage charges, Compliance with court directions, Address discrepancy in notice, Fair hearing to petitioner.

Analysis:
1. Challenge to Impugned Order: The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 06.11.2014, which levied penal demurrage charges of Rs. 7,75,726. The petitioner had a dispute with the Customs Department regarding customs duty payment for imported cargo lying at Chennai Port. A previous court order directed the petitioner to approach the authorities with documentary evidence, but the respondent confirmed the demurrage charges without proper consideration. The petitioner argued that the respondent did not comply with the court's directions and did not provide a fair hearing on the matter.

2. Compliance with Court Directions: The respondent claimed that the demurrage charges were as per the rates fixed by the Chennai Port Trust and that the notice regarding the charges was sent to the correct address, as declared by the petitioner's agent. However, discrepancies were found in the addresses mentioned in the notice and the petitioner's official documents. The court noted that the impugned order was non-speaking, lacked critical details, and did not reflect the necessary information regarding the notice, address discrepancy, and compliance with court directions.

3. Address Discrepancy in Notice: The impugned order confirmed the demurrage charges without addressing the discrepancies in the addresses provided by the petitioner and mentioned in the notice. The court observed that the order lacked a detailed discussion on the service of notice and the petitioner's liability for the charges. It was evident that the order was passed without proper consideration and without adhering to the court's earlier directions, indicating a lack of application of mind by the respondent.

4. Fair Hearing to Petitioner: The court concluded that the respondent had arbitrarily confirmed the demurrage charges without giving the petitioner a fair hearing. As a result, the impugned order dated 06.11.2014 was quashed, and the matter was remitted back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The respondent was directed to provide the petitioner with a fair opportunity to present their case, including submitting documentary evidence and having a personal hearing within eight weeks from the date of the court's order.

In summary, the court found that the respondent's confirmation of penal demurrage charges lacked proper consideration and a fair hearing for the petitioner. The impugned order was quashed, and the matter was remitted back to the respondent for fresh consideration, emphasizing the importance of providing the petitioner with a fair opportunity to present their case.

---