1989 (9) TMI 113 - HC - Customs

Court Rules Demurrage Charges Inapplicable to Detained Baggage

ASHOK DHAWAN Versus UNION OF INDIA

ASHOK DHAWAN Versus UNION OF INDIA - 1990 (47) E.L.T. 218 (Del.) Issues Involved:1. Whether the International Airports Authority of India (IAAI) can charge demurrage on baggage detained by Customs.2. Whether a mandamus can be issued to trace a missing packet of the petitioner's computer or provide equivalent items or compensation.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Demurrage Charges on Baggage:The primary question was whether IAAI could charge demurrage on the petitioner's baggage, which was detained by Customs. The petitioner argued that demurrage is not chargeable on 'baggage' as per the statute, rules, and regulations. The relevant regulations, including the International Airports Authority of India (Storage & Processing) Regulations, 1980, define 'cargo' to exclude 'baggage,' and demurrage is chargeable only on 'cargo.' Regulation 2(b) defines 'cargo' as excluding 'mail, stores, and baggages,' and Regulation 2(g) defines 'demurrage' as charges for not removing 'cargo' within the allowed time. Therefore, demurrage is not applicable to 'baggage.'The Court examined various provisions, including the Customs Act, 1962, and the Transfer of Residence Rules, 1978, and concluded that demurrage cannot be charged on baggage. The Court noted that the petitioner's computer, imported under the Transfer of Residence Rules, was detained by Customs erroneously, and thus, the petitioner was not liable for demurrage charges. The Court also found that the Chairman of IAAI did not apply his mind properly in refusing to waive 100% of the demurrage charges, considering one of the three packets of the computer was untraceable, making the computer non-functional.2. Mandamus to Trace Missing Packet:The second issue was whether a mandamus could be issued to trace the missing packet or provide equivalent items or compensation. The petitioner's computer arrived in three packets, and one packet went missing while in the custody of IAAI. The Court noted that the missing packet issue arose after the writ petition was filed and that the petitioner needed the computer for professional work. The Court observed that the Customs authorities and IAAI, as the custodian, were statutorily liable to account for the goods under Section 45 of the Customs Act, 1962.Drawing from the Supreme Court's decision in M/s. Oswal Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Customs and Another, the Court held that the Customs authorities and their custodian (IAAI) have a statutory obligation to account for the goods. The Court emphasized that it could exercise its judicial discretion under Article 226 to provide effective relief, especially when a party is aggrieved by the actions of a public body or authority.Considering the facts and the statutory liability, the Court issued a mandamus directing Customs and IAAI to trace the missing packet and deliver it to the petitioner within one month. If the packet could not be traced, they were to provide the nearest compatible equivalents or their value within three months.Conclusion:The Court allowed the writ petition, holding that demurrage is not chargeable on baggage detained by Customs and that the Chairman of IAAI did not properly consider the waiver of demurrage charges. Additionally, the Court issued a mandamus to trace the missing packet or provide equivalent items or compensation, ensuring effective relief to the petitioner. The petition was allowed with costs, and counsel's fee was set at Rs. 2,000/-.