TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (2) TMI 21
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Petitioner incurred a total sum of Rupees 7,14,043/- on account of Detention and Demurrage charges. It is this sum which is claimed by the Petitioner from the Respondents. 2. The Supreme Court of India in International Airports Authority of India vs. Grand Slam International, (1995) 3 SCC 151 held as under: 66. From the above decisions of this Court it becomes clear that an authority created under a statute even if is the custodian of the imported goods because of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1961, would be entitled to charge demurrages for the imported goods in its custody and make the importer or consignee liable for the same even for periods during which he/it was unable to clear the goods from the customs area, due to fault on the part of the Customs Authorities or of other authorities who might have issued detention certificates owning such fault. 3. In a later judgment, the Supreme Court has held the Customs Department liable for the illegal detention of the imported goods, viz. Union of India vs. Sanjeev Woolen Mills,1998 (4) JT 124 where their Lordships appear to have whittled down the liability of the importer to pay demurrage by holding the Customs Authori....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ave an undertaking before the High Court that in the event the goods are found to be synthetic waste, then the Revenue itself would bear the entire demurrage and container charges. Further the Chief Commissioner of Customs, later had ordered unconditional release of the goods and yet the goods had not been released. It is under these circumstances and in view of the specific undertaking given by the Customs Authorities, this Court held that from the date of detention of the goods till the Customs Authorities intimated the importer, the importer would not be required to pay the demurrage charges. But in that case even subsequent to the orders of the Customs Authorities on a suit being filed by one of the partners of the importer firm, an order of injunction was issued and, therefore it was held that for that period, the importer would be liable for paying the demurrage and container charges. The judgment of this Court in Union of India vs. Sanjeev Woolen Mills, 1998 (4) JT 124 therefore, was in relation to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the Court had clearly observed that the order in question is meant to do justice to the importer, looking to the totality of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hese judgments, this Court in the case of Om Petro Chemicals vs. Union of India, 2002 III AD (Delhi) 268 explained the law in the following terms:- 23.Would that however mean that the petitioner must pay demurrage charges even though it is not at fault. Answer to the question must be rendered in negative. The decisions of the Apex Court therefore are authorities for the proposition in certain situation; the court may direct the customs authorities to bear the demurrage charges. In the instant case the customs authorities still insisted that the goods were illegally imported. It sought to justify its stand even before this Court. This Court is not only a court of law but also a court of equity. In a situation of this nature we are of the opinion that this court may find that in place of the importer or the consignee, the customs authorities should bear the charges. Once it is held that the petitioner herein has not committed any illegality in importing the goods in question, in our opinion, it cannot ordinarily be saddled with the liability of payment of demurrage. The petitioner in the fact situation of this case must be held to have been sinned against than sinning. In UO....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of fraud or fraudulent design, is a constant element of its connotation. Even so, the quality and quantity of the honesty requisite for constituting good faith is conditioned by the context and object of the statute in which this term is employed. It is a cardinal canon of construction that an expression which has no uniform, precisely fixed meaning, takes its colour, light and content from the context. 8. The Supreme Court in Asstt. Commr., Anti-Evasion Commercial Taxes vs. Amtek India Ltd., (2007) 11 SCC 407 also observed thus:- 9. Whether an act has been done in good faith would depend upon the factual scenario. In order to establish "good faith", it has to be established that what has been imputed concerning the person claiming it to be so, is true. 10. "Good faith" according to the definition in Section 3(22) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 means a thing, which is in fact done honestly whether it is done negligently or not. 11. Anything done with due care and attention, which is not mala fide is presumed to have been done in "good faith". 12. Good faith is defined under Section 2(h) of the Limitation Act, as good faith nothing shall be deemed to be don....