TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1995 (2) TMI 70
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e any conflict in the Public Notice issued by the Customs Authorities and Regulations framed by the IAAI, are some of the questions which arise for consideration in these appeals. But before adverting to these issues, facts in brief may be mentioned. 3.In Appeal No. 798 of 1992 the respondent filed with the Customs Authorities Bill of Entry on cargo terminal along with all documents to seek clearance of goods, namely, printing papers etc. of CIF of value of Rs. 17,846.00. The valuation given in the Bill of Entry was objected to by Additional Collector of Customs, and he passed an order on 8th November, 1989 enhancing the value of the goods and directing confiscation of the same. In appeal the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi quashed the order of the Additional Collector of Customs on 3rd July, 1990. Since the order enhancing the valuation and directing confiscation was quashed the Collector of Customs issued detention certificate from 7-8-1989 to 12-7-1990. It was mentioned in the certificate that the detention was due to case of the respondent pending before the Collector and in the appeal. The respondent thereupon applied for waiver of the demurrage....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1990 has been referred to the Regional Office/Head Office. But the Assistant Collector, Customs was requested to inform the importer that they will have to bear entry fee, handling and insurance charges and ground rent after 29-12-1990 in case the Head Office agrees for waiver. 5.In Appeal No. 3971 of 1992 the respondent had imported multi-cable-transit/cable sealing system. The clearance of goods was claimed under Tariff Item No. 85.47 on payment of duty @ 135.75%. The department on the other hand directed it to be cleared by paying duty @ 181.75% under Tariff Item No. 39. However, the claim of the respondent was ultimately accepted. And provisional clearance was granted on payment of demurrage charges. After the claim was accepted the respondent wrote a letter to the appellant that since the claim had been accepted by the Customs Authorities and IAAI at the time of release had stated that this question of refund shall be considered after final decision was taken by the Customs Authorities, the amount of Rs. 3,26,645/- paid towards demurrage may be refunded. But the respondent was informed that the claim of refund was not admissible. 6.In each of these cases the Customs Departme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tions framed by the IAAI is extracted below :- "Demurrage means the rate or amount payable to the airport by a shipper or consignee or carrier for not removing the cargo within the time allowed." Similar word used in Port Trust of Madras Act, 1905 came up for interpretation before this Court in Trustees of the Port of Madras v. Aminchand Pyarelal & Ors., (1976) 1 SCR 721. It was explained that the word was not used in the strict mercantile sense, `but merely to signify a charge which may be levied on goods after expiration of `Free Days'. This ratio has been reiterated in The Board of Trustee of the Port of Bombay v. Indian Goods Supplying Co. (1977) 3 SCR 343 and Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Jai Hind Oil Mills Company & Ors. 1987 (30) E.L.T. 633 (SC) = (1987) 1 SCR 932. The dispute, thus is whether the days or period during which adjudication proceedings were pending before the Customs Authorities could be considered to be free days on any principle of law, statutory or otherwise, or it can be held to be so on construction of Regulations and policy framed by the IAAI read with the Act and the Public Notice issued under it. But before coming to it, it appears necess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iting of the proper officer." This section permits removal of imported goods from the `customs area' which under clause (11) of Section 2 of the Act means : "2. (11) "customs area" means the area of a customs station and includes any area in which imported goods or exported goods are ordinarily kept before clearance by Customs Authorities;" It is thus clear that the imported goods are kept at the airport or the Warehousing Corporation in the customs area over which it is the Customs Department which exercises control. No goods can be removed from there either, by the importer or even the Custodian. The detention is to enable the Customs Department to proceed in accordance with law and determine if the valuation disclosed was correct or the goods had been properly imported etc. A person importing the goods is required to comply with rules and notification issued by the Government permitting, prohibiting or regulating import. Whether the importer is complying with the rules or not and acting in accordance with law is entrusted to the Customs Department. No goods can be cleared except with permission of the Customs Department. Therefore, it is by operation of the statutory provisio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i) that the cargo shall be subject to the control of customs; (ii) that IAAI shall maintain detailed account of all imported and exports goods received by them as `custodian' and shall produce such account for inspection by a gazetted officer of customs. 11.Sub-paragraph (vii) of paragraph (d) which is material reads as under : In case of goods detained/seized etc. by customs, the"(vii) warehousing/storage charges shall be calculated by IAAI for the period due minus the charges for the period of detention at the instance of Customs as certified by the Assistant Collector of Customs". The language of the sub-paragraph is clear and unambiguous. Unlike the letter of request sent by Central Government in Indian Goods Supplying Co.'s case (supra) it is a direction by the Collector of Customs to the custodian of goods at the airport or the warehouse not to charge any warehousing or storage charges for the period the goods detained or seized by the Customs Department are kept in custody subject to the issuance of a certificate by the Assistant Collector of Customs that the goods were detained at the instance of Customs Department. But what was urged by the learned counsel for the appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment to frame rules and Section 157 empowers the Board to make regulations consistent with the Act to carry out the purposes of the Act. Section 152 empowers the Central Government to issue notification that any power exercisable by the Board under the Act may be exercised by the Collector of Customs. It is not claimed that no notification was issued by the Central Government empowering the Collector to exercise the powers of the Board. Therefore, the Collector could exercise the same power as the Board. Consequently, the Notice issued by him cannot be said to be invalid. It must be assumed to have been issued in exercise of powers under Section 157 to carry out the purposes of the Act. 12.The next question is what is the consequence of it. Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 45 of the Act extracted earlier provides that the persons having custody of the imported goods in customs area, that is, IAAI or CWC shall not permit such goods to be removed from the customs area or otherwise deal with except in accordance with the permission in writing of the proper officer. The word `otherwise' is defined in Standard Dictionary to mean, `in a different manner, in another way'. In Webs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lated by issuing Public Notice. It does not interfere with the right of the appellants to frame their rate schedule and charge demurrage. Nor does it interfere with right to charge dues for keeping the goods in the warehouse. It only provides that where the goods have been detained or seized at the instance of the Customs Department, the dues might be calculated minus this period. This could have been done by the Central Government or the Board or the Collector. Therefore, the issuance of Public Notice directing the appellants not to charge any dues for the period the goods were detained would be covered in the expression, `otherwise dealt with'. It is further strengthened by Section 150 of the Act which lays down precedence for sale of goods which are not confiscated. The payments to the Custodian under clause (d) of sub-section (2) of the Section is to be made only after meeting the expenses of sale, freight and duty. The appellants could not, therefore, ignore sub-paragraph (vii) of paragraph (d) of the Notice. It is no more a request by the Central Government but an exercise of power by the appropriate authority under the Statute. It is not inconsistent with any provision of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tself in its entirety should not be interpreted solely by reference to its own terms, but rather by reference to the other laws of the state, and particularly to those pertaining to the same subject". Crawford's, Interpretation of Laws, 1989 p. 420. 15.Legislations, rules or regulations are enacted to regulate the day to day activities. But they cannot be exhaustive and the practical difficulties arising in working out these have to be resolved by developing principles by the court which are justice oriented, serve public purpose and promote social interest, of course, without doing violence to the language of the Section and the objective of enactment and if the provision was enacted to remedy any event, then to construe it in a manner in which it may carry out the objective of the enactment which was intended to suppress the mischief. The Notice appears to have been issued in the first instance to mitigate the hardship of the importers and therefore it should be construed so as to remedy the mischief which was intended to be remedied. Apart from that the court's duty while construing two provisions covering the same field is to harmonise the two provisions in such a manner that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Customs under the Public Notice issued under Section 45 of the Act. When the goods were entrusted in the custody of IAAI it was aware of the Public Notice. It should be deemed to have accepted the custody subject to the condition. In fact the statutory provisions leave no option for the IAAI or CWC after 1986 except to act in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The custody by the IAAI or CWC is not as it is popularly understood in the commercial sense. It is a statutory custody governed by the provisions of law. Therefore, once rules were framed or Public Notice was issued in exercise of statutory power the IAAI or CWC cannot set up the claim that the intimation issued by the Customs Department could not be taken into account for determination of free days. Even on principle of bailment, the IAAI or CWC cannot escape from the effect of detention certificate. Clause (6) of Procedures and Tariff of CWC provides that subject to above terms and conditions, the rights and liabilities of the Corporation shall be as that of a bailee. A bailment under Section 148 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 means `delivery of goods by one person to another for some purpose, upon a contract th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thorities. While the Authority would be the custodian of the import Cargo delivered to it by the carriers the responsibility for export cargo would be that of the shipper or his agent before customs examination, of the Customs in respect of detained cargo during examination and of the carriers after customs examination." Even according to these regulations the imported goods are under the control of the Customs Department. It acts only as custodian of the goods on behalf of the Customs Department. It is not the agent of the consignee. Once the aircraft lands and the goods are handed over to the consignee, the agreement between the carrier and consignee comes to an end and thereafter inspection by the Customs Department, its detention and direction to store in the `specified area' till the adjudication proceedings are over are statutory powers exercised under the Act. The IAAI has no option. It cannot refuse inspection nor can it refuse to keep the imported goods. There is no material difference in the rules framed by the Customs Department, the Public Notice issued by it and the regulations framed by the IAAI. The IAAI is custodian under either of the Customs Department. Therefore....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hereas the Public Notice was issued in 1986. For purposes of detention of imported goods by the Customs Department at Indira Gandhi International Airport, therefore, Paragraph 3.1 has to be read that where detention certificate has been issued by the Customs Authorities in accordance with sub-paragraph (vii) of the Public Notice, no demurrage shall be charged for the period mentioned in it. 19.Same is the result even if the policy framed by the IAAI is examined from another aspect. The definition of `demurrage' has already been extracted. It mentions the rate or amount payable by the consignee for not removing the cargo within the time allowed. The regulation do not throw any light on the expression `within the time allowed'. Paragraph 3 of the Regulations provides the procedure to be followed for the storage and processing of the goods in the International Air Cargo Complex at the airport. Clause (b) relates to imported goods. It provides that the goods shall be received by the officials of the Authority/Ground Handling agency from the carrier in the presence of Customs officials. The consignee will be responsible for getting his consignment examined by Customs and obtaining `out....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ay not be chargeable more than 80% in such cases for the entire period of dentention. 20.The issue, however, is not whether 80% for the entire period of detention should have been waived but whether any demurrage could have been charged for the period detention certificate was issued by the Assistant Collector of Customs. If the appellants' claim that IAAI being a statutory body it was entitled to frame its regulations and rate schedule is accepted then it results in conflict between sub-paragraph (vii) of Public Notice and paragraph (3) of the Policy framed by the IAAI. The legislative intention in enacting Act being to check and control economic offences such as smuggling, illegal import etc., the provisions have to be construed to advance the purpose sought to be achieved without sacrificing the consignee's interest. The provisions in the International Airports Authority Act and the Policy framed thereunder cannot be construed so as to be self-defeating. But that would be the result if the construction suggested by the appellants is accepted. The adjudicatory process is time consuming. From Assistant Collector of Customs to the Tribunal itself it may take sufficiently long time....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ences. 21.But before parting it is necessary to observe that from 1976 to 1993, the entire scenario of cargo traffic from air has gone tremendous change. The busy traffic, the spate of smuggling, manoeuvring of importing goods by camouflaging to avoid payment of duty have multiplied putting immense pressure on the IAAI and the Customs Department. At the same time the honest and bona fide consignee should be protected for sake of credibility. The Customs Department on its part may consider the feasibility of framing a policy by dividing the imported goods in different categories. Where the import is not prohibited or it is against licence or permit and the only dispute is about valuation or the tariff item under which it falls, it may be released on furnishing of bank guarantee or security sufficient to secure the interest of Department subject to final decision. This determination should be done at the airport. It would obviate the necessity of storing goods, save the IAAI or CWC from unnecessary botheration, protect the Department and serve the importer better. Till then the Public Notice issued by Customs Department appears to be reasonable and practicable solution to the proble....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rustees of the Port of Madras v. M/s. Aminchand Pyarelal & Ors., (1976) 1 S.C.R. 721, Board of Trustee of the Port of Bombay v. Indian Goods Supplying Co., (1977) 3 S.C.R. 343, and Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Jai Hind Oil Mills Company & Ors., 1987 (30) E.L.T. 633 (SC) = (1987) 1 S.C.R. 932. 26.In the case of Trishul Impex (ibid) a writ petition filed by an importer had been allowed and the Union of India and the Container Corporation of India were directed to issue a detention certificate from the date on which a Bill of Entry was filed until the date of actual clearance and to release the imported goods without payment of demurrage charges. The Corporation, the 5th respondent, filed an application before the High Court in which a declaration was sought that the liability for the demurrage charges would have to be borne by the importer. The Division Bench that heard the application came to the conclusion that the Corporation was the custodian of the goods under Section 45(2) of the Customs Act. As a detention certificate had been issued by the Customs Authorities, the Corporation was bound to release the goods to the importer and it was the Customs Authorities who ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... It held, inter alia, that the Board could not charge demurrage for the period during which the goods had been detained for no fault or negligence of the importer or his agent, demurrage being, in its view, a charge for wilful failure to remove goods. The Board approached this Court in appeal. This Court noted the provisions of the Madras Port Trust Act and, particularly, the provisions of sections 42, 43 and 43A thereof. Section 42 empowered the Board to frame a scale of rates at which and a statement of the conditions under which the services specified therein would be performed by the Board. One of the clauses thereof referred to landing of goods from any vessel upon any land or building in the possession or occupation of the Board or at any place within the limits of the Board. Another referred to wharfage, storage or demurrage of goods at any such place. By reason of section 44, every scale and every statement of conditions framed by the Board under sections 42, 43 and 43A had to be submitted to the Central Government for sanction and, when so sanctioned and published in the Official Gazette, had the force of law. Section 44(1A) empowered the Central Government to cancel any ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to be submitted by the Board to the Central Government for sanction and it was only when it was so sanctioned that it had the force of law. The requirement of such sanction was a restraint on unwise, excessive or arbitrary fixation of rates. Section 44(2) conferred on the Board the power, in special cases and for reasons to be recorded in writing, to remit the whole or any portion of rates or charges leviable according to any scale in force. Port Trusts did not do the business of warehousing goods and the rates which the Boards charged for storage of goods were not levied as a means of collecting revenue. The Board was under a statutory obligation to render services of various kinds and those services had to be rendered not for the personal benefit of this or that importer but in the larger national interest. Congestion in the ports affected free movement of ships and of essential goods. The scale of rates had therefore to be framed in a manner which would act both as an incentive and as a compulsion for the expeditious removal of goods from the transit area. Ships, like wagons, had to be kept moving and that could happen only if there was pressure on the importer to remove goods ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fter the expiry of the 60th day, upto the 90th day, half the normal rate after the expiry of 90th day upto the 120th day, 2/3rd of the normal rate after the expiry of the 120th day, 2/3rd of the normal rate after the expiry of the 120th day upto the 150th day and at the full rate after the expiry of the 150th day. As the scale of rates are framed by virtue of the statutory powers conferred on the Board under Section 43 and as the rates have been approved by the Central Govenment under Section 43B, the rates have the force of law and cannot be questioned. Taking into account the hardship to the importers certain concession has been given but the legality of the rates which are being levied according to law cannot be questioned." This court then referred to the aforementioned judgment in the case of M/s. Aminchand Pyarelal and said that it was on all fours with the facts of the case before it and concluded the question. It was held that the High Court was in error in holding that the importer of the goods could not be held responsible for any delay not attributable to his own default and that demurrage under the statute could never be imposed as long as the goods were detained for t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ges the Port Trust may not be in a position to recover such full demurrage charges from the party concerned, since it would have no longer any lien as provided by Section 59 of the Act on the goods which are already cleared. The Port Trust being a body corporate constituted under the Act is entitled to be heard by the Court before any order which affects its interests prejudicially is passed. This case serves as an illustration to what is stated above. The Port Trust has been asked to permit the clearance of goods in respect of which demurrage charges of Rs. 3,53,514.75 paise are payable in the event of the 1st Respondent being held liable in law to pay the full demurrage charges. The orders passed by the High CFourt in the proceedings to which the Port Trust was not a party which had the effect of prejudicially affecting the interests of the Port Trust would not be binding on it in view of the violation of the principles of natural justice." 31.This Court in the cases aforementioned, therefore, held that the Board of Trustees of a port was, under the statute that created it, entitled to charge demurrage even in respect of periods during which the importer was unable to clear good....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Section 35 directs that the Authority shall, in the discharge of its functions and duties, be bound by such directions on questions of policy as the Central Government may give it in writing from time to time. Section 37 gives the Authority the power to make regulations to provide for all matters for which provision is necessary for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Act. The Authority is specifically empowered by section 37(2)(d) to make regulations for the storage or processing of goods in any warehouse established by it under section 16(3)(d) and the charging of fees for such storage or processing. 33.By virtue of the power vested in the Authority under section 37, the Authority has framed regulations called the IAA (Storage and Processing of Goods) Regulations, 1980. Under Regulation 4, the Authority is empowered to levy charges, including storage charges and demurrage. Regulation 5 empowers the Authority to fix and revise from time to time the scales of charges. By reason of Regulation 6 the Chairman may in his discretion, for reasons to be recorded, waive charges in deserving cases. The Authority has framed a policy in regard to the waiver of demurrage c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....el the Customs Authorities to issue detention certificates without first hearing the Board concerned, because detention certificates have the effect of reducing the revenues of the Boards. The Boards and the Authority being similarly placed, the judgments determine the questions raised in these appeals. 36.During the course of the hearing reliance was placed upon a Customs Public Notice dated 30th April, 1986 and numbered 30/86. It is issued on the subject of "Unloading/loading - custody of Import/export cargo at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi". It notifies, for the information of airlines, importers, exporters and clearing agents, that the Collector of Customs, New Delhi, in exercise of powers vested in him under sections 8, 33, 34 and 45 of the Customs Act, 1962, has specified "limits of Customs Area as whole of existing area constituting the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi including domestic arrival and departure area, Cargo Terminal New International Terminal Complex (CTNITC for short) and the entire premises of Central Warehousing Corporation Ltd. (CWC for short), located at Gurgaon Road, New Delhi, excluding M/s. IAA's Import Cargo Warehouse (m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....val of imported goods - Save as otherwise provided in any law for the time being in(1) force, all imported goods unloaded in a customs area shall remain in the custody of such person as may be approved by the Collector of Customs until they are cleared for home consumption or are warehoused or are transhipped in accordance with the provisions of Chapter VIII. The person having custody of any imported goods in a customs(2) area, whether under the provisions of sub-section (1) or under any law for the time being in force, - shall keep a record of such goods and send a copy thereof to(a) the proper officer; shall not permit such goods to be removed from the customs(b) area or otherwise dealt with, except under and in accordance with the permission in writing of the proper officer." 40.None of these provisions entitles the Collector of Customs to debar the collection of demurrage for the storage of imported goods. They do not entitle him to impose conditions upon the proprietors of ports or airports before they can be approved as Customs ports or Customs airports. Section 45 provides that all imported goods imported in a Customs area must remain in the custody of the person who ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irect them, under the aforementioned provisions, not to levy demurrage charges for periods covered by detention certificates. C.A. No. 4227/92 44.The goods of the first respondent in this appeal were stored, pending their clearance by the Customs Authorities, at the Container Freight Station of the appellant, the Central Warehousing Corporation at Patparganj, Delhi. The Central Warehousing Corporation is established under the provisions of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962. The provisions of the Warehousing Corporations Act are substantially similar to those of the International Airports Authority Act, 1971, and the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. What has been said above in regard to the International Airports Authority applies as well to the Central Warehousing Corporation. 45.In the result, the appeals (C.A. Nos. 798/92, 3971/92 and 4227/92) are allowed. The judgments and orders under appeal are set aside. The writ petitions filed by the first respondents in each of the appeals are dismissed. 46.There shall be no order as to costs. 47.[Judgment per : Venkatachala, J.]. - The important question which is required to be considered and answered in deciding the above civil app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No. 3971 of 1992 arises out of the judgment dated 3-2-1992 of the High Court of Delhi in Civil Writ Petition No. 3235 of 1989, whereby the IAAI - the appellant herein, was directed to refund demurrage charges which it had collected in respect of the goods of the petitioner therein - respondent-1 herein, despite the detention certificate issued in respect of such goods by the Asstt. Collector of Customs. Such direction, according to the High Court, was issued following its earlier Division Bench judgments in M/s Trishul Impex (supra) and Grand Slam International v. Union of India - C.W. 554 of 1991 decided on 21st September, 1991. 51.Civil Appeal No. 4227 of 1992 arises out of Judgment dated 22-1-1992 again of the High Court of Delhi in C.W. No. 1751 of 1991, by which it directed the CWC to release the goods of the petitioner therein without collecting the demurrage charges from the petitioner therein in respect of the period covered by the detention certificate issued by the Asstt. Collector of Customs. Such direction, it is said in the judgment, was issued following its Division Bench judgment in M/s. Trishul Impex (supra), wherein it was held that the custodian of the goods und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the consignee cannot be made liable to make good such demurrage charges in respect of the periods of such detention for which detention certificates were issued by the Customs Authorities, which was taken following the view already taken in similar matters by its Division Benches. As the sustainability of the said view of the High Court is under chall- enge in the present appeals, the question adverted to at the outset is required to be considered and answered for rendering a proper decision in them. 54.The provision in sub-section (1) of Section 45, which bears on the question required to be considered, reads thus : "45.Restrictions on custody and removal of imported goodsSave as otherwise provided in any law for the time being in. - (1) force, all imported goods unloaded in a customs area shall remain in the custody of such person as may be approved by the Collector of Customs until they are cleared for home consumption or are warehoused or are transhipped in accordance with the provisions of Chapter VIII." 55.As becomes clear from the above sub-section all imported goods unloaded in customs areas shall remain in custody of such person as may be approved by the Collector of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rd under any provision of the Act or its Rules or its Regulations and hence unenforceable. 58.Learned counsel appearing for respondents were not able to invite Court's attention to any provision either in the Act or the Rules or the Regulations made thereunder which empowered the Collector of Customs to impose by issue of Public Notice the above condition (vii) in clause (d) thereof denying the IAAI which is approved as the custodian of imported goods in Customs area, the right to collect the charges from the consignee for keeping his imported goods detained or seized by the Customs Authorities nor my effort to find any provision in the Act or its Rules or its Regulations enabled me to find any provision which conferred such power of imposing such condition upon the IAAI merely because it is approved as the custodian of imported goods on behalf of Customs Department. However, as to whether the Parliament in enacting the Act intended that custodians to be approved thereunder to keep the goods coming into customs areas should relieve the owners (consignees) of such goods of their liability for payment of charges for such keeping or otherwise could be gathered from the provision in S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of Section 63 of the Act. When in pursuance of the said Regulations policy directions are issued by the IAAI in supersession of earlier instructions on the subject of waiver of demurrage charges on production of detention certificate issued by the Customs Authorities showing that detention of goods was for no fault of consignees it can be safely concluded that any directions issued by Customs Collector contrary to such Regulations and the policy directions as those issued without authority in law are ultra vires his powers. Therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that the aforesaid condition (vii) in clause (d) of the Customs Public Notice No. 30/86 directing the IAAI not to collect the custody charges in respect of the goods for which detention certificates may be issued by the Collector of Customs or his delegatee, has to be regarded as a condition imposed by the Collector of Customs without being conferred any power in that regard either in the Act or the Rules or the Regulations. If condition (vii) of clause (d) of the Customs Public Notice No. 30/86 is regarded as that imposed by the Collector of Customs without authority of law, it having been imposed ultra vires his p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gainst the importer, the Union of India and the Customs Authorities for recovery of the demurrage charges which had not been recovered on account of the detention certificate. But, that suit was resisted by the importer on the plea that the delay in clearing the goods was due to fault on the part of the Customs Authorities and hence there was no legal obligation on its part to pay the demurrage charges. The suit was dismissed by the High Court accepting the plea of the importer. When the Board brought up the matter before this Court in appeal, the provisions of the Madras Port Trust Act and the scale of rates fixed by the Board with the approval of the Central Government pursuant to the provisions of the Act having been thoroughly examined, it was held that the High Court was in error in its conclusion that the Board had no power to charge demurrage where goods were not removed from its premises not due to the fault or negligence on the part of the importer, but due to fault of the Customs Authorities. 63.Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Indian Goods Supplying Co. [(1977) 3 SCR 343] is the second of such decisions of this Court, where this Court examined the sustainabili....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing operations. As stated earlier, the Port Trust shows concession to the party concerned in certain types of cases." 65.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, 1962, 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. 66.Thus, the above decisions of this Court which uphold the power of Ports Trusts created under Ports Act to levy and collect demurrage charges for goods they keep as Custodians for Customs Department from the consignees notwithstanding the detention certificates issued by the Customs Department clearly support the view I have taken that the IAAI, an authority constituted under the International Airports Authority Act, 1971, when is entitled to collect charges for keeping custody of the imported goods by regulatio....