JALPAC INDIA LTD Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In or about May, 1991 the writ petitioner, Jalpac India Limited imported resin from a foreign supplier in two consignments. On 30th and 31st May, 1991 Bills of Entry for warehousing of the said two consignments were filed. The Customs Officers detained the goods on the allegation that the goods were not P.V.C. resn and as such, could not be imported under Open General Licence. An Order was passed on or about July 11, 1991 by the Additional Collector of Customs requiring the writ petitioner to pay a redemption fine of Rs. 2,00,000. The writ petitioner informed the Additional Collector that it would prefer an appeal to CEGAT and paid for removal of the goods to a bonded warehouse. The Customs Department failed to allow removal of the goods to Bombay warehouse. The writ petitioner incurred huge liability by way of demurrage. This writ petition was moved on 23rd August, 1991 when an Order was passed directing warehousing of the goods. A direction was also issued to the Customs Department to issue Wharfage Rent Exemption Certificate because there was no justification for not warehousing the goods.

(2.) Strangely enough the Collector of Customs issued an exemption certificate not in proper form. The Customs Department did not mention that the detention was not attributable to any fault or negligence on the part of the importer.

(3.) In any event ultimately pursuant to a specific direction given by the Court on 10th October, 1991, the Collector of Customs issued a certificate. The Port Trust, however, did not allow the goods to be cleared nor did it apply for vacation or variation of the order passed by this Court. Ultimately on 4th February, 1992 the Port Authority was directed to allow clearance of the goods on the strength of exemption certificate upto 23rd October, 1991. No rent was to be charged after 23rd October, 1991 because non-clearance was attributable to the obstructive attitude of the Port. After this order was passed the goods were allowed to be cleared by the Port Authority. But the writ petitioner failed to clear the goods on one pretext or another. The failure of the writ petitioner to clear of the goods was entirely due to negligence of the writ petitioner. In fact, the matter was mentioned in the Court that even after Port Trust have allowed clearance of the goods on or after 4th February, 1992 the goods have not been cleared by the writ petitioner.