METRO EXPORTERS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. J DATTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When the petition was called out nobody was present on behalf of the petitioners. I have gone through the petition and the affidavit in reply and heard Mr. Tulyarkhan for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioners carry on business inter alia as importers and exporters of rubber plasticizers. In the year 1974, the petitioners had imported rubber plasticizers which arrived n Bombay by "S. S. State of Bihar" on 16-5-1974. The petitioners filed a bill of entry in respect thereof dated 26-6-1974 for home consumption. In or about August 1974 the Customs' appraiser questioned the Covered by the relevant licence. By an endorsement on the bill of entry dated 26-8- 1974 the petitioners agreed to abide by the result of decision in similar case which were pending. The case which was meant to be referred to was that of M/s. Hamilton Industries Pvt. Ltd. which also had imported the same goods. In view of this the bills of entry wee returned to the petitioners. As per the practice the petitioners had to present the bills of entry at proper time i.e. after the disposal of the case against M/s. Hamilton Industries Pvt. Ltd. at the first stage and in case appeal and revision were filed after the final decisions thereof. As to what the proper stage for representation of bills of entry was would depend on the interpretation given to the endorsement read with the relevant provisions of the Act. On 7.12.1974, the Deputy Collector of Customs passed an order imposing penalty on M/s. Hamilton Industries Pvt. Ltd. On or about 15.1.1975 an appeal was filed by M/s. Hamilton Industries Pvt. Ltd. by an order dated 7.7.1975 and the and the goods were released to M/s. Hamilton Industries Pvt. Ltd. without penalty. Petitioners got the consignment released non or about 3.12.1975. The Customs authorities issued two certificates of detention in respect of the two consignments covered by the licence dated 9.2.1976 which covered the detention period from 23.8.1974 to 24.1.1975 only. According to the petitioners the detention certificates ought to have covered the period from 23.8.1974 up to 23.12.1975 when the goods were ultimately cleared by the petitioners. As per the applicable rules governing the demurrage, and according to there solution of the respondent No.3 an importer is entitled to certain concession to the demurrage at a graded scale in scale in case the importer is unable to clear the consignments for certain specified reasons. The petitioners therefore have asked for a writ of mandamus against the Customs authorities for issue of detention certificate for a longer period than the period on which the same wa given and also asked for relief against the 3rd respondent which is Bombay Port Trust for release of goods without demurrage for the entire period of 23.8.1974 to 3.12.1975 on the ground that the 3rd respondent cannot demurrage if the goods could not be cleared for no fault of the petitioners.

(3.) the petitioner's claim against the 3rd respondent is covered by a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Port of Bombay V/s. I G. Supplying Co. As per the said decision even when an importer is asked to pay demurrage when the gods cannot be cleared without any default on the part of the importer the Port Trust is entitled to claim demurrage, no doubt subject to the concession for a Limited period of 150 days at a graded scale as per the resolutions of the Port Trust.