Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 2681 of 2001
PETITIONER:
SHIPPING CORPN. OF INDIA LTD.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
C.L. JAIN WOOLEN MILLS & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/04/2001
BENCH:
G.B. Pattanaik S.N. Phukan & B.N. Agrawal
JUDGMENT:
WITH
Civil Appeal Nos. 2682-2684 of 2001.
(@ S.L.P.(c) Nos. 5001, 9021/99 and SLP (c) No. 3063/2001
respectively)
L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J
JUDGMENT
PATTANAIK,J.
Leave Granted.
In this batch of appeals, a common question of law
having arisen, they were heard together and are being
disposed of by this common judgment. The question for
consideration is whether the appellant, who under the terms
of the contract between him and the owner of the goods,
having a lien over the goods, until the dues are paid can be
forced to release the goods, without charging any demurrage,
merely because the customs authorities issued a detention
order for a specified period ? We would discuss the
question in relation to the facts in the case between the
Shipping Corporation of India vs. C.L. Jain Woolen Mills.
The respondent C.L. Jain Woolen Mills, imported the
consignment of polyester filament yarn from Korea to India.
The port of load was Busan in Korea and the port of
discharge was Bombay in India, but the place of delivery of
goods was ICD, Delhi. The goods thus being brought to the
port of Bombay were discharged but there had been no customs
clearance at Bombay and the sealed container was transhipped
to ICD, Delhi, where it remained with the Container
Corporation of India. The Shipping Corporation of India is
engaged in the business of carriage of goods. On the terms
and conditions contained in the Bill of Lading, in respect
of the goods consigned to it, the corporation claims that
the goods cannot be released unless demurrage charges are
paid. After the goods arrived in Delhi and remained in the
custody of the appellant, the customs authorities being of
the opinion that import of polyester filament yarn weighing
5,376 kgs. was unauthorised and directed confiscation of
the same, valued at Rs.11.5 lakhs under Section 111(d) of
the Customs Act, 1962. The said customs authorities however
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11
permitted the owner to redeem the goods on payment of Rs. 7
lakhs. That apart, a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh was also levied
under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. The owner of the
goods assailed the order before the Customs, Excise & Gold
(Control) Appellate Tribunal [for short CEGAT]. The
tribunal instead of deciding the objections raised by the
owner to the validity of the order of the Additional
Collector of Customs, ordered that the advance licence and
DEEC Book be amended and adjourned the appeal for a period
of three months. The owner, therefore, approached the Delhi
High Court by filing a writ petition, which was registered
as Writ Petition No. 1604/91, praying quashing of the order
of the customs authorities, confiscating the goods and
imposing the penalty and that of the Import Trade Control
Authority enhancing the export obligation from 14,497.5 kgs.
to 22,330 kgs. of polyester fabric. It was the contention
of the owner before the High Court that in accordance with
the export policy and the Duty Exemption Scheme, raw
materials could be cleared for home consumption without
payment of import duty. To avail of the facility, the
importer is required to apply for grant of licence called
the Advance Licence and on the basis of the same, raw
materials could be imported without payment of any duty.
According to the owner, under the licence, thus issued by
the Controller of Imports and Exports, entitling import of
raw materials without payment of duty, the customs
authorities committed error in proceeding with the
confiscation proceedings and ordering confiscation as well
as levying penalty. The customs authorities as well as the
Controller of Imports and Exports had been arrayed as party
respondents in the writ petition. Both of them as well as
Union of India resisted the claim of the owner, who had
imported the goods in question. The High Court disposed of
the writ petition by judgment dated 9th September, 1994,
quashing the order of the Additional Collector of Customs
dated 10th August, 1990 as well as the order of the Customs
Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal dated 21st
March, 1991 and directed the Collector of Customs to release
the goods forthwith. The High Court also further held that
since the action of the customs authorities is illegal, the
goods in question will have to be released to the owner
without payment of any detention or demurrage charges by the
owner. Needless to mention, the Shipping Corporation of
India, the appellant in the present appeal, who was the
carrier and who under the Bills of Lading had a lien over
the goods, until the dues are paid had not been made a party
to the aforesaid writ petition. At this stage it may also
be noticed that during pendency of the writ petition in the
High Court, an interim order had been passed, entitling the
owner to take release of the goods on payment of Rs. 5
lakhs to the customs authorities and a bank guarantee of Rs.
5 lakhs but the owner had not taken advantage of the said
interim order and the goods continued to remain in the
custody of the present appellant and demurrage charges went
on accruing. The order of Delhi High Court was assailed in
this Court by filing a Special Leave Petition by the Customs
Authorities but that Special Leave Petition however stood
dismissed on 13.11.95 in SLP No. 5671/95. The owner of the
goods having failed in his attempt to get the goods
released, notwithstanding the orders of the High Court in
CWP No. 1604/91, filed an application for initiating a
contempt proceeding, which was registered as CCP No.
120/95. The High Court however came to hold that the
authorities cannot be held to be guilty of disobeying the
orders of the Court and accordingly, dismissed the contempt
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11
petition. While dismissing the contempt petition, the
learned Judge, granted liberty to the owner to move the
Division Bench of the High Court for appropriate directions
regarding payment of demurrage/detention charges. Pursuant
to the aforesaid observations in the contempt proceedings,
an application being filed by the owner, the same was
registered as CM 4829/96. That application was disposed of
by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court by order dated
18th January, 1999. The Division Bench, while disposing of
the petition, came to hold that the entitlement of the
carrier of the goods to charge demurrage charges and if so,
whether the customs authorities would be liable to pay the
same or not is not required to be answered and is a matter,
which should be sorted out between those two corporations
and the customs authorities. But so far as the owner of the
goods are concerned, he having been absolved of any
liability to pay the demurrage charges by virtue of the
judgment of Delhi High Court dated 9.9.94 in CWP No.
1604/91, he would be entitled to get the goods released
without payment of the detention and demurrage charges. The
High Court, therefore called upon the customs department as
well as the two corporations, who are the carriers to sort
out the matter within a specified period and further held
that if any detention or demurrages charges are payable, the
same shall be paid by the customs department within three
weeks. It further directed the carrier of the goods,
including the appellant to release the goods after the
customs department pays the detention/demurrage charges.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid order, the goods not being
released, when a fresh contempt petition was filed,
registered as CCP No. 89/99, the High Court issued notice
on 25.2.99, calling upon the alleged contemnor to file their
reply by 11th March, 1999. Against the initiation of the
aforesaid contempt proceeding, the Shipping Corporation of
India filed SLP No. 3391/99. The order dated 18.1.99 was
also assailed by the Shipping Corporation, which was
registered as SLP No. 5001/99. The container Corporation
of India filed a special leave petition on identical
circumstances and raising identical question, which is SLP
No. 9021/99. The Union of India also assails the order
dated 18.1.99 by filing Special Leave Petition No.
3063/2001 along with the application for condonation of
delay. This batch of cases were listed before a Bench of
two learned Judges on 11th February, 2001 and after hearing
the matters for sometime, the Bench felt that there appears
to be some inconsistency between the decision of this Court
in Union of India vs. Sanjeev Woolen Mills, 1998(9) SCC 647
and the Grand Slam Internationals case reported in 1995(3)
SCC 151 and as such observed that the cases should be placed
before a Three Judge Bench and that is how, this batch of
cases are before this three Judge Bench. When these appeals
by grant of special leave were placed before the Three Judge
Bench on 1st March, 2001, we had directed the goods be
released to the owner without any conditions but such
release will be subject to the ultimate decision in these
appeals.
The stand of the carriers in this Court is that in view@@
JJJJ
of the provisions of the Bills of Lading Act as well as the@@
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
terms and conditions under which the goods have been
imported the corporation-carrier retains a lien over the
goods until all the dues including the demurrage charges are
paid and the order of the Delhi High Court in the writ
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11
petition to which these carriers were not parties, will not
obliterate that right. The further contention of these
corporations is that the order of the High Court dated
18.1.99 without determining the rights of the carrier and
directing to sort out the matter with the customs
authorities is unsustainable and as such the same should be
set aside. The stand of the customs authorities and the
Union of India on the other hand is that the customs
authorities cannot be required to pay the demurrage charges
merely because the action of the customs authorities in
detaining the goods was found to be illegal by the Court of
law. According to the Union of India in such a case when a
detention certificate is issued by the customs authorities,
the carrier of goods will not be entitled to claim any
demurrage charges notwithstanding the terms and conditions
of the contract under which the goods had been carried and
on this score, the order of the High Court dated 18.1.99 is
erroneous. The contention of the importer of the goods on
the other hand is that in view of the findings of the High
Court in CWP No. 1604/91, specifically holding that the
goods in questions be released without payment of demurrage
or detention charges and the further finding to the effect
that the order of the customs authorities in confiscating
and levying penalty is illegal and invalid, the importer
cannot be made liable to pay the demurrage and detention
charges. It is the further submission of the importer that
notwithstanding the clear directions of the High Court, non-
release of goods was a gross violation of the Courts order
and, therefore, the appropriate authorities should be
suitably dealt with.
In view of the submissions made at the Bar appearing for
different parties, referred to earlier, the first question
that arises for consideration is whether in the case in
hand, the importer of the goods can be made liable to pay
any demurrage/detention charges? It is undisputed that
under the terms and conditions of Bills of Lading, the
carrier had a lien over the goods until all the dues are
paid and the goods having been kept, not being released, the
corporation-carrier was entitled to charge demurrage
charges. But in view of the specific directions of the
Delhi High Court in the writ petition filed by the importer
of the goods, challenging the legality of the order of the
customs authorities in confiscating the goods and levying
penalty and that order having reached finality by dismissal
of the special leave petition against the same filed by the
Union of India, the liability of the importer to pay the
demurrage charges ceases and that question cannot be
re-opened.
The next question that arises for consideration which is
a larger issue, namely if the customs authorities do not
release the goods and initiates proceedings and finally
passes order of confiscation but that order is ultimately
set aside in appeal and it is held by Court of law that the
detention of the goods was illegal, then in such
circumstances whether the carrier of the goods who had lien
over the goods for non- payment of duty, can enforce the
terms and conditions of the contract against the customs
authorities, making the said authorities liable to pay the
demurrage charges. Needless to mention, demurrage charges
are levied for the place the goods occupy and for the period
it remains not being released, on account of lack of customs
clearance. It may be noticed at this stage that the customs
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11
authorities exercise its power under the provisions of the
Customs Act whereas the claim of the Corporation who acts as
a carrier is based upon the terms and conditions of the
contract between the importer and the carrier. So far as
the powers of the customs authorities are concerned, the
same are circumscribed by the provisions of the Customs Act,
1962. Section 8 of the Customs Act empowers the Collector
of Customs to approve proper places in any customs port or
customs airport or coastal port for unloading and loading of
goods and specify the limits of the customs area. Section
33 prohibits unloading of imported goods at any place other
than the place approved under Section 8(a) of the Act.
Section 34 provides that the imported goods shall not be
unloaded from any conveyance except under the supervision of
the proper officer. Section 45 provides for clearance of
imported goods. The same provision may be extracted herein
below in extenso:
Sec.45 Restrictions on custody and removal of imported
goods:
(1) Save as otherwise provided in any law for the time
being in force, all imported goods, unloaded in a customs
area shall remain in the custody of such person as may be
approved by the [Commissioner of Customs] until they are
cleared for home consumption or are warehoused or are
transhipped in accordance with the provisions of Chapter
VIII.
(2) The person having custody of any imported goods in a
customs area, whether under the provisions of sub-section
(1) or under any law for the time being in force (a)shall
keep a record of such goods and send a copy thereof to the
proper officer; (b) shall not permit such goods to be
removed from the customs area or otherwise dealt with,
except under and in accordance with the permission in
writing of the proper officer.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for
the time being in force, if any imported goods are pilferred
after unloading thereof in a customs area while in the
custody of a person referred to in sub- section (1), that
person shall be liable to pay duty on such goods at the rate
prevailing on the date of delivery of an import manifest or,
as the case may be, an import report to the proper officer
under section 30 for the arrival of the conveyance in which
the said goods were carried.
Under the aforesaid provision, the imported goods would
remain in the custody of the person approved by the Customs
Commissioner, until they are cleared for home consumption or
are warehoused or are transhipped in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter VIII. Section 47 of the Act is the
provision to obtain clearance of goods for home consumption.
Section 49 provides for storage of imported goods in public
warehouse, or in a private warehouse, if permitted by the
Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of
Customs. Under Chapter IX of the Act, the Deputy
Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner of Customs may
appoint public warehouses wherein dutiable goods may be
deposited, as provided in Section 57 of the Act. Under
Section 58, the Deputy Commissioner or Assistant
Commissioner may even license private warehouses wherein
dutiable imported goods could be deposited. But all
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11
warehoused goods would be subject to the control of the
proper officer of the customs department, as provided in
Section 62 and the owner of the goods is required to pay the
rent and warehouse charges to be fixed by the Commissioner
of Customs, as provided in Section 63. No warehoused goods
could be taken out of the warehouse except for clearance of
home consumption or for removal to another warehouse, as
stipulated in Section 67 of the Act. Section 68 provides
the procedure which an importer would follow for clearing
the warehoused goods for home consumption. The expression
warehouse has been defined in Section 2(43) to mean a
public warehouse appointed under Section 57 or a private
warehouse licensed under Section 58. It is thus apparent
from different provisions mentioned above that the customs
authorities have full power and control over the imported
goods and without the permission of the customs authorities,
the goods cannot be cleared. But at the same time, there is
no provision in the Customs Act, conferring power on the
Customs Authorities to prohibit or injunct any other
authority where the imported goods are stored from charging
the demurrage charges for the services rendered for storing
the imported goods. We are not concerned in the present
case with the provisions of either the Major Ports Trust Act
or International Airport Authorities Act, as the imported
goods had not been stored either in any Major Port or in the
international air cargo. It may however be necessary to
examine some of the provisions of the Bills of Lading Act as
well as the Contract Act, since the claim of both, the
Shipping Corporation and Container Corporation, charging
demurrage for the space occupied for the goods, not being
released, is on account of the contract between them. Under
the Indian Bills of Lading Act, 1956, every consignee of
goods, named in a Bill of Lading and every endorsee of a
Bill of Lading, is vested with absolute right over the
goods. The Bill of Lading is a well known mercantile
document of title, which is transferred in the business
world by endorsement passing to the endorsee, the title of
the goods covered by such Bill of Lading. Clause (18)
provides for payment of demurrage charges in case of
non-clearance of goods within the free time available. The
said clause is extracted herein below in extenso:
Clause 18 Delivery of goods in Container: If receipt
of goods in container(s) is not taken by the merchant within
48 hours after discharge from the vessel (or after the
arrival of the goods at place of delivery if named herein)
the carrier shall be at liberty at his discretion either to
unpack the container(s) and to put the goods in safe on
behalf of the merchant and at the merchants risk and
expense or to charge demurrage in accordance with the
carriers tariff applicable to the route over which the
goods are carried. If unpacking the goods of container(s)
is required for whatever reason and the contents cannot be
identified as to the marks and numbers, cargo sweepings
liquid residue and any unclaimed contents not otherwise
accounted for shall be allocated for completing delivery to
the merchant. The carrier shall not be required to separate
or deliver goods in accordance with the brand, marks,
numbers, size or types of packages as stated by the merchant
in his particulars but only to deliver total number of
containers (if same loaded by the merchant or packages or
units) (if container(s) loaded by the carrier) shown on the
face of this Bill of Lading.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11
Clause (2) of the Bill of Lading defines Carriers
Tariff as follows:
Clause (2)- Carriers Tariff:
The terms of the carriers applicable tariff are
incorporated herein and copies of the relevant
provisions of the applicable tariff are obtainable
from the carrier or the agents upon request. In the
case of inconsistency between this Bill of Lading
and the applicable tariff, this Bill of Lading shall
prevail.
Clause (14) confers a lien on the goods for all sums
payable under the contract. The said clause is quoted below
in extenso:
Clause (14). FREIGHT ETC. EARNED
........All unpaid charges shall be paid in full and
without any offset, counterclaim or deduction. Any error in
freight or other charges or in the classification of Goods
is subject to correction and if on correction the freight or
charges are higher the Carrier may collect the additional
amount from shipper or consignees. The Carrier shall have a
lien on the Goods and any documents relating thereto for all
sums payable to the Carrier under the contract (including
without limitation unpaid freight and dead freight upon any
portion of the Goods covered by the Shipping Order granted
in respect hereof which may not have been shipped) and the
General Average contribution to whomsoever due and for the
cost of recovering the same and for that purpose shall have
the right to sell the Goods by public auction or private
treaty without notice to the Merchant. The Merchant shall
indemnify the Carrier against all and any costs incurred by
the Carrier in exercising his rights under this clause.
The expression Carrier under the definition clause in
the Bill of Lading means the Shipping Corporation of India
Limited and/or associated company on whose behalf the Bill
of Lading has been signed.
The two provisions of the Contract Act, on which Mr.
Dave, appearing for the appellant, strongly relied upon, may
now be noticed. Section 170 is the right of lien of the
bailee for the services rendered in respect of the goods and
the bailee has right to retain the goods until he receives
due remuneration for the services he has rendered. Section
171 is the General lien of bankers, factors, wharfingers,
attorneys and policy brokers, who also retain as a security,
the goods bailed to them. The contention of Mr. Dave, for
the appellant is the right of the appellant to claim
demurrage charges in respect of the goods, which is in his
custody, the said goods not being released, within a
specified period, flows from the terms and conditions of the
contract between the importer and the corporation and that
right cannot be taken away by issuance of a detention
certificate by the Customs authorities under the provisions
of the Customs Act and as such even if a Court directs that
the importer is not liable to pay the demurrage charges,
because of the illegal detention of the goods by the customs
authorities, the appellant would not be bound by the same,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11
particularly, when the appellant was not a party to the
proceedings between the customs authorities and the
importer. Learned Additional Solicitor General, Mr. Mukul
Rohtagi however, on the other hand contends that Section
45(2)(b) of the Customs Act prohibits release of imported
goods from the customs area, except in accordance with the
permission in writing of the proper officer. The expression
otherwise dealt with in the aforesaid provision is also a
restriction placed on the custodian and that is a complete
embargo for the goods being released. The prohibition in
question is in relation to removal of goods as well as
dealing with the goods in any manner. This being the manner
of restrictions imposed for removal of the goods and at the
same time, conferring power on the customs authorities, if
after initiation of adjudication proceedings, a Court of law
nullifies the same and the customs authorities then issues a
detention certificate, then the importer would not be liable
for paying any demurrage charges, notwithstanding the
contract between the importer and the appellant, and at any
rate, the customs authorities cannot be fastened with the
liability of paying the demurrage charges. In this view of
the matter, the order of the Delhi High Court dated 18.1.99
must be held to be erroneous. The rival contentions require
careful examination of the different provisions of the
Customs Act, the Contract Act as well as the Bills of
lading.
Before examining the correctness of the rival
submissions, one thing is crystal clear that the
relationship between the importer and the carrier of goods
in whose favour the Bill of lading has been consigned and
who has stored the goods in his custody, the relationship is
governed by the contract between the parties. Section 170
of the Indian Contract Act engraft the principle of Bailees
lien, namely if somebody has received the articles on being
delivered to him and is required to store the same until
cleared for which he might have borne the expenses, he has a
right to detain it until his dues are paid. But it is not
necessary in the case in hand to examine the common law
principle and the bailees lien inasmuch as the very terms
of the contract and the provisions of the Bills of Lading,,
unequivocally conferred power on the appellant to retain the
goods, until the dues are paid. Such rights accruing in
favour of the appellant cannot be nullified by issuance of a
certificate of detention by the customs authorities unless
for such issuance of detention certificate any provisions of
the Customs Act authorises. We had not been shown any
provisions of the Customs Act, which would enable the
customs authorities to compel the carrier, not to charge
demurrage charges, the moment a detention certificate is
issued. It may be undoubtedly true that the customs
authorities might have bona fide initiated the proceedings
for confiscation of the goods which however, ultimately
turned out to be unsuccessful and the Court held the same to
be illegal. But that by itself, would not clothe the
customs authorities with the power to direct the carrier who
continues to retain a lien over the imported goods, so long
as his dues are not paid, not to charge any demurrage
charges nor the so- called issuance of detention certificate
would also prohibit the carrier from raising any demand
towards demurrage charges, for the occupation of the
imported goods of the space, which the proprietor of the
space is entitled to charge from the importer. The importer
also will not be entitled to remove his goods from the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11
premises unless customs clearance is given. But that would
not mean that demurrage charges could not be levied on
importer for the space his goods have occupied, since the
contract between the importer and the proprietor of the
space is in no way altered because of the orders issued by
the customs authorities. The learned Additional Solicitor
General, vehemently argued and pressed sub-section 2(b) of
Section 45 in support of his contention that the imported
goods have to be dealt with in accordance with the
permission in writing of the proper officer of the customs
department and in exercise of such power when customs
authorities initiate adjudication proceeding and ultimately
confiscate and levy penalty, when such order is struck down
and a detention certificate is issued, the said issuance of
detention certificate would come within the expression
otherwise dealt with used in Section 45(2)(b), and
therefore, the proprietor of the space would be bound not to
charge any demurrage charges. We are unable to accept this
contention inasmuch as the expression otherwise dealt with
used in Section 45(2)(b), in the context in which it has
been used, cannot be construed to mean, it authorises the
customs officer to issue a detention certificate in respect
of the imported goods, which would absolve the importer from
paying the demurrage charges and which would prevent the
proprietor of the space from levying any demurrage charges.
Having scrutinized the provisions of the Customs Act, we are
unable to find out any provision which can be remotely
construed to have conferred power on the customs authorities
to prevent the proprietor of the space from levying the
demurrage charges and, thereby absolving the importer of the
goods from payment of the same. In fact the majority
decision in Grand Slam Internationals case, 1995(3) SCC
151, clearly comes to the aforesaid conclusion with which we
respectfully agree.
We have also examined the decision of this Court in
Union of India vs. Sanjeev Woolen Mills, 1998(9) SCC 647
and we do not find any apparent inconsistency between the
decision of this Court in Grand Slam and that of the Sanjeev
Woolen Mills. In Sanjeev Woolen Mills, the imported goods
were synthetic waste (soft quality), though the customs
authorities detained the same, being of the opinion that
they were prime fibre of higher value and not soft waste.
On account of non-release, the imported goods incurred heavy
demurrage charges but the customs authorities themselves
gave an undertaking before the High Court that in the event
the goods are found to be synthetic waste, then the Revenue
itself would bear the entire demurrage and container
charges. Further the Chief Commissioner of Customs, later
had ordered unconditional release of goods and yet the goods
had not been released. It is under these circumstances and
in view of the specific undertaking given by the customs
authorities, this Court held that from the date of detention
of the goods till the customs authorities intimated the
importer, the importer would not be required to pay the
demurrage charges. But in that case even subsequent to the
orders of the customs authorities on a suit being filed by
one of the partners of the importer-firm, an order of
injunction was issued and, therefore it was held that for
that period, the importer would be liable for paying the
demurrage and container charges. The judgment of this Court
in Sanjeev Woolen Mills, therefore, was in relation to the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the Court
had clearly observed that the order in question is meant to
do justice to the importer, looking to the totality of the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11
circumstances and the conduct of customs authorities. Thus,
we see no inconsistency between the ratio in Sanjeev Wollen
Mills and the Judgment of this Court in Grand Slam. That
apart, the judgment in Grnd Slam was a three judge bench
judgment. In the case in hand, as has already been stated
earlier, the earlier judgment of Delhi High Court dated
9.9.94 in C.W.P. No. 1604/91, has become final, which
entitles the importer to get the goods released without
payment of the detention and demurrage charges. In the
contextual facts, notwithstanding the judgment of the High
Court, the goods not having been released, the impugned
order and direction dated 18.1.99, cannot be held to be
infirm in any manner. In the absence of any provision in
the Customs Act, entitling the customs officer to prohibit
the owner of the space, where the imported goods have been
stored from levying the demurrage charges, levy of demurrage
charges for non-release of the goods is in accordance with
the terms and conditions of the contract and as such would
be a valid levy. The conclusion of the High Court to the
effect that the detention of the goods by the customs
authorities was illegal and such illegal detention prevented
the importer from releasing the goods, the customs
authorities would be bound to bear the demurrage charges in
the absence of any provision in the Customs Act, absolving
the customs authorities from that liability. Section
45(2)(b) of the Customs Act cannot be construed to have
clothed the customs authorities with the necessary powers,
so as to absolve them of the liability of paying the
demurrage charges. In the aforesaid premises, we see no
infirmity with the directions given by the Delhi High Court
on 18.1.99. The goods in question, having already been
directed to be released, without the payment of the
demurrage charges, the importer must have got the goods
released. Having regard to the fact situation of the
present case, it would be meet and proper for us to direct
the Shipping Corporation and Container Corporation, if an
application is filed by the customs authorities to waive the
demurrage charges. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
37
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11