TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (4) TMI 731
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ainer freight station owners will not allow the goods to be removed unless their charges for storage are met. The charges are quite substantial. The writ petitioner says that these charges are more than the value of the goods. Although, diverse prayers have been made in the writ petition, the only prayer that was seriously urged by Mr. Jayanta Mitra, learned Advocate General appearing for the writ petitioner was that the demurrage charges be borne and paid by the customs, as the goods were detained for a prolonged period for their fault. Now let me elucidate on the facts. Out of the six containers two arrived in the port of Kolkata on 1st January 2013 and the others by March, 2013. Four containers were shipped from Singapore one from Malaysia and one from Australia. Of the six containers, five were shipped by M/s. Arrow Chem. Pvt. Ltd, Singapore and one by Houra Resources Pvt. Ltd., Australia. The customs took up the first container on 29th January, 2013 for sampling and assessment of customs duty. Similarly, the second container arrived at the port on 1st January, 2013. It was removed to the container freight station on the same day. On 1st February, 2013 sampling and assessme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h their test report, to the Central Pollution Control Board to report to them whether the goods were hazardous. The customs recorded in another letter of 7th May, 2013 that the Central Pollution Control Board, Kolkata had refused to accept the samples on the ground that no chemical tests were conducted in their office. This letter was addressed by the Customs to the scientist 'D' incharge of the Central Pollution Control Board with a request whether his office would test the goods. Then again on 9th May, 2013 the customs wrote to the Indian Oil Corporation that the Customs department had opined that the goods did not satisfy the requirements of furnace oil/ fuel oil and whether the two samples could be sent to the Indian Oil laboratory. On 23rd May, 2013 the customs reminded Indian Oil that they had not received their reply. On 24th May, 2013 the refineries division of Indian Oil Corporation, Kolkata e-mailed to them that the samples might be taken to Indian Oil's, Haldia refinery laboratory on 27th or 28th May, 2013 for testing. On 27th May, 2013 the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Appraisal) Gr-1 informed the writ petitioner that the customs had opined that the goods were not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t he had a right to claim damages for wrongful detention of his goods by the customs, which had not been decided or kept open by the learned Judge. The appeal was disposed of on 9th July, 2014 inter alia by granting liberty to the writ petitioner to claim the consequences of the alleged delay by the customs. The claim of the writ petitioner is confined to a very small area, in this writ application. The alleged fuel or furnace oil which had been imported by him had been lying from almost the time of their unloading in Kolkata Port in the container freight stations operated by the eighth and ninth respondents. These freight stations allow a lay time or free time for removal of the goods. Beyond this period rent or demurrage is discharged. The quantity of alleged furnace oil/fuel oil imported by the writ petitioner is still lying in the container freight stations. Considerable rent or demurrage charges are due and payable on account of their storage. The eighth respondent claims Rs. 24, 31,253 upto February 2015 whereas the ninth respondent claims Rs. 8,32,940 upto 6th April, 2015. The writ petitioner wants the customs to bear these charges because according to them the goods had t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o get the goods properly tested but they were faced with the obstacle that there were no adequate testing centres for them. I have recounted the correspondence that the customs had with Indian Oil Corporation, Central Pollution Control Board etc.. in the earlier part of the judgement. In fact, the above correspondence brings to light two or three very important facts. First, the petitioner did not respond to the letter of the customs to store the goods under Section 49 of the customs Act, 1962. Secondly, he did not even deposit the charges of the National Test House which could have tested the goods in Kolkata. Having not received the fees for testing such goods in this laboratory, they had to be sent to New Delhi to be tested by the Central Revenue Control Laboratory. Thirdly, the petitioner did not offer the services of another testing centre to test the goods so as to rule out that the goods were hazardous. When the writ petitioner found that the imported goods were not being cleared for home consumption by the Indian authorities, he should have immediately taken steps to re-export the same under Rule 17(2) of the Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling and Transboundary Moveme....