2016 (5) TMI 652

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....towards demurrage charges and to direct the respondents to refund the sum of Rs. 9,39,867.53p erroneously paid by the petitioner towards demurrage charges. 2. According to the petitioner, they were appointed as Agent for clearing the cargo Muriate of Potash imported by M/s.Indian Potash Limited, Chennai, a Government of India Limited. The said importer has imported 13,050 metric tons of Muriate of Potash from Israel through Vessel MV Euro Sky. The petitioner has filed the bill of entry for clearing the cargo under the Bill of Exchange dated 03.12.2015 and paid the necessary wharfage charges. The Customs Department, by their Examination Order dated 07.12.2015, had released 80% of the cargo and retained 20% on site for verifying the descript....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re entitled for 45 free days, however, the respondents 1 & 2 Port Trust insisted and collected demurrage charge on 20% of the cargo, viz., 2,610 tons at the rate of Rs. 18.50 per Ton initially from 20.12.2015 to 26.12.2015 and at the rate of Rs. 36/- per Ton from 27.12.2015 to 30.12.2015 and in the process, had collected a sum of Rs. 9,39,867.53p. 5. By the test report conducted by the Central Fertilizers Quality Control and Training Institute, Faridabad, the imported cargo satisfies the standards as per Fertilizer Control Order, therefore, the restraint imposed on the petitioner in respect of 20% of the cargo was lifted by the Customs Department pursuant to the report dated 04.01.2016. The petitioner approached the 2nd respondent on 13.01....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....40 metric tons on 07.12.2015 within the free days. Further, they have stated that in respect of the 20% of the cargo, the Customs have not imposed Detention Order, therefore, it was not detained as per the orders of the Customs. Further, the respondents 1 & 2 contended that since there was no Detention Order passed by the Customs and the Customs Detention Certificate was issued in respect of the 20% of the cargo, the petitioner is liable to pay demurrage charges. 7. In the counter filed by the 3rd respondent/Customs Department, in paragraphs - 2 to 5, the 3rd respondent has stated as follows: "2.Adverting to para 6 the respondent submits that the petitioner had filed bill of Entry No.3466985 dated 03.12.2015 for import of 13,000 M.Tones ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the cargo on 13.01.2016. Further, in paragraph   4, the Customs Department had specifically stated that on receipt of the test report, the petitioner approached the respondents for release of the detained goods. Further, the 3rd respondent had stated that the total number of days to clear the cargo is less than 45 days. 9. When the 3rd respondent, Customs Department had specifically stated that the goods were detained for conducting verification and tests and that the detained goods were released on 13.01.2016 after the receipt of the report from the Regional Fertilizer Control Laboratory on 04.01.2016, the contention of the respondents 1 & 2 that unless the goods were detained by the Customs Department, the petitioner is liable....