TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Illegal Detention of Goods for Non-Payment of Charges</h1> <h3>BHARTIYA PLASTIC UDYOG Versus CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPN.</h3> The court held that the respondent-CWC's detention of the second and third consignments for non-payment of warehousing charges for the first consignment ... Warehousing Issues Involved:1. Whether the respondent-Corporation could refuse to deliver the second consignment due to non-payment of warehousing charges for the first consignment.2. Whether the Corporation is entitled to claim warehousing charges for the second consignment stored without the petitioner's consent.3. Whether the respondent-Corporation could detain subsequent consignments for non-payment of warehousing charges of the first consignment.4. Whether the warehousing corporation is entitled to claim warehousing and insurance charges for the third consignment detained without the petitioner's consent.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Refusal to Deliver the Second ConsignmentThe petitioner imported acrylic scrap (First Consignment) and another consignment (Second Consignment). Despite paying the customs duty for the second consignment and the customs department's endorsement that the goods had 'passed out of customs charge,' the respondent-CWC refused to deliver the second consignment. The refusal was based on the petitioner's non-payment of warehousing and insurance charges for the first consignment. The court observed that the petitioner was not liable to pay storage charges to the Warehousing Corporation and directed the respondents to release the goods without further charges.Issue 2: Claiming Warehousing Charges for the Second ConsignmentThe petitioner argued that the second consignment was warehoused without their consent, and thus, the Corporation could not claim warehousing charges. The court noted that there was no provision in the Customs Act, Warehousing Corporation Act, or Contract Act permitting the Warehousing Corporation to have a lien over goods not warehoused with the owner's consent. Consequently, the respondent-CWC was not entitled to claim warehousing charges for the second consignment.Issue 3: Detaining Subsequent ConsignmentsThe petitioner imported a third consignment, which was also detained by the respondent-CWC on the same grounds of non-payment of warehousing charges for the first consignment. The court highlighted that under Sections 48 and 63 of the Customs Act, the lien of the warehouse keeper can only be on goods warehoused with the owner's consent. The court rejected the respondent's argument that they could detain subsequent goods to recover charges for the first consignment, concluding that the respondent had no authority to detain goods not warehoused or stored with them.Issue 4: Claiming Warehousing Charges for the Third ConsignmentThe court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Shipping Corporation of India Limited v. C.L. Jain Woollen Mills and Others, which held that in the absence of any provision in the Customs Act absolving the Customs Authorities from liability, they would be bound to pay demurrage charges if the goods were illegally detained. Applying this principle, the court concluded that the detention of the third consignment was illegal, and thus, the respondent-CWC could not claim warehousing and insurance charges for the period of illegal detention.Conclusion:The court ruled that the respondent-CWC's actions of detaining the second and third consignments for non-payment of warehousing charges of the first consignment were illegal. The respondent-CWC was directed to release the third consignment forthwith without claiming any warehousing or insurance charges. The court left the parties to bear their own costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
