TRISHUL IMPEX Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties. This court by order dated November 12, 1990, allowed the petition and directed respondents 1 to 5 to release the goods without payment of demurrage charges in favour of the petitioner and also to issue a Detention Certificate in respect of these goods from February 27, 1988 when the Bill of Entries were filed until the date of actual clearance.

(2.) Respondent No. 5 has now filed this C. M. 468/91 in which a declaration is sought that the liability of any demurrage charges and ground rent charges will have to be borne by the petitioner. The petitioner's case is that in all 71 cartons were imported and the Bill of Entries were presented on February 27. 1988 and thereafter the Customs authorities instituted an inquiry and a show cause notice was issued on December 15, 1988. Ultimately however, by order dated March 15, 1990 the Assistant Collector Customs discharged the said show cause notice. The petitioner's case is that when the show cause notice has been discharged, the petitioner has no liability for payment on demurrage charges and/or the ground rent charges. According to it, the Container Corporation of India is the custodian on behalf of the Customs authorities under Section 45C2) of the Customs Act and as such after issuance of the Detention Certificate by the Customs authorities the Inland Container Depot is under an obligation to release the goods without payment of demurrage charges and ground rent charges.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner referred to two decisions in Support of his contention. One decision is of this Court dated July 28, 1987 in Trans Asia Carpets v. Union of India, CCP No. 97/87(1). In that case this court had observed that the Bombay Port Trust as an agent of the Customs authorities was bound by the judgment of the court whereby the Customs Collector was to waive the demurrage or the detention charges and it was not open to the Bombay Port Trust to stress upon any alleged minor error in the detention certificate. It was observed that the Customs Collector had to obey the order of the court. It was necessary for the Bombay Port Trust to assist them in ensuring compliance with the order of the court. The Bombay Port Trust instead of assisting them questioned their authority and the detention certificate ordered to be issued by this court. The petitioner submitted that in the present case the Inland Container Depot is the custodian of the Customs authorities under Section 45 of the Customs Act and as such bound by any orders passed against the Customs authorities.