SONIA OVERSEAS P LTD Vs. ASST COMMR CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Petition invokes the writ jurisdiction of this Court to direct the Respondents, viz. , the Assistant Commissioner, Customs and Deputy director of Income-Tax to pay compensation to the Petitioner for the cost incurred by it by way of demurrage due to delay occasioned in the grant of a clearance Certificate. It is stated in the Writ Petition that the Petitioner imported six consignments from Australia between October, 1995 to January, 1996 on which Petitioner No. 1 paid the Custom Duty. Later, the Petitioners were informed by their Clearing Agents that clearance of consignments had been stopped by the Respondents who had referred the case to Special Investigation bureau for investigation as a precautionary measure. The goods were eventually granted clearance on 30. 1. 1996 by which time the 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 Authorities liable for the demurrage charges, on the assumption that the goods had been detained illegally. The Court observed thus:-