V.J. TRADERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's grievance in this proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution is with respect to the claim by CONCOR, towards demurrage. The relevant facts are that the petitioner's imported goods - in two containers were detained. The consignment was of paint. Suspecting misdeclaration the Customs Authorities initiated proceedings; upon waiver of Show Cause Notice, the goods were assessed and the differential duty to the extent of Rs. 18 lacs was demanded. This amount included a component of countervailing duty (CVD). The petitioner's appeal succeeded in part in the sense that final amount demanded was Rs. 3 lacs.

(2.) It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that given the circumstances of this case, the CONCOR should not insist upon payment of demurrage assessed at Rs. 35 lacs. It is contended that the ruling of this Court in Trip Communication Private Limited v. UOI, 2014 (302) E.L.T. 321 is inapplicable having regard to the difference in facts. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in International Airport Authority of India v. Grand Slam International and Others, 1995 (3) SCC 151 = 1995 (77) E.L.T. 753 (S.C.). It is submitted that having regard to the fact that CONCOR does not have a policy for waiver of demurrage, the observations in Trip Communication Private Limited (supra) would not apply.

(3.) It is argued on behalf of the respondents that especially by C NCOR, that ?rd of the demurrage charges calculated (i.e. out of Rs. 35,20,800/-) have been waived and the petitioner is required to pay Rs. 11,94,000/-. It is contended therefore that since the petitioner is the recipient of substantial benefit, its argument that in the absence of a policy CONCOR cannot insist upon deposit of demurrage is not substantial.