Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
M/S.RISHI TRADE CENTRE ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS & ORS.ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16/09/1996
BENCH:
B.P.JEEVAN REDDY, K.S. PARIPOORNAN
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Delay condoned in S.L.P.(C) No.19051 of 1996
(cc.No.2966/96).
Leave granted in both the appeals.
Civil appeal No. 12036 of 1996 @ S.L.P. (C) No. 19051 of
1996 (CC. No. 29660) (Narayani Trading Concern (p) Ltd.)
This appeal is preferred against the judgment of a
Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court dismissing the
appeal preferred by the respondent-collector of
customs,calcutta port & others.
The appellant says that he is engaged in the business
of importing of various articles from foreign countries for
consumption in Nepal and that he holds necessary Licences
and permits in that behalf from the Government of Nepal.He
imported white poppy seeds from Pakistan. They were imported
by sea. The goods arrived at Calcutta port, from where they
were to be taken to be Nepal along he route prescribed in
the Indo-Nepal Treaty of trade, Transit and Clearance. The
goods were detained by the customs authorities at calcutta
port. Since the goods were not released for quit some
time,the appellant (and other similarly placed importers)
approached the Calcutta High Court by way of writ petitions
for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction to
the customs authorities to release the said goods. The
learned single judge allowed the writ petitions by his
judgment and order dated May 19, 1995. The learned judge
directed the respondents "to forthwith release the
consignment of poppy seeds forming the subject matter of
this writ application,and to allow the petitioner concerned
to transit the same to Nepal in accordance with and in the
manner provided for in the provisions of the treaty of
transit and Treaty of trade between the Government of India
and the Government of Nepal and the improcedure forming part
thereof on the route mentioned in the Customs Transit
Declaration (Import), being Annexure ’A’ to writ petition,
in the manner indicated below."
The learned single judge also appointed,rather
curiously, an advocate of the High Court as a receiver to
ensure against pilferage of goods enroute and also to guard
against diversion of good for use in India.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
Against the judgment of the learned single judge, he
respondents field appeal which have been dismissed by the
Division Bench. Following that judgment, the application for
intervention filed by the appellant in civil appeal arising
from S.L.P.(C) No.10287 of 1996 was also dismissed.
In this appeal, it is submitted by sri Joseph
Vellapally, learned counsel for the appellant, that the
action of the customs authorities in retaining the innocuous
goods like poppy seeds for an inordinately long time at
Calcutta port is clearly a mala fide action. He submitted
that on account of the long period of detention, the goods
have deteriorated completely and have become valueless. He ,
therefore submits that the respondents must be directed to
compensate the appellant in full for the loss and damage
suffered by the appellant on account of the unlawful seizure
and detention of the appellant’s goods. Learned counsel also
attacks the findings recorded by the two learned judges
(constituting the Division Bench) to the effect that the
action taken by the customs authorities was not a mala fide
one.
In our opinion, however, the appellant is not entitled
to claim such a relief in this appeal for the following
reasons: the writ petition filed by the appellant was
allowed by the learned single Judge merely directing the
release of the goods. So for as the claim for reimbursement
of demurrage and port charges are concerned, the learned
Judge merely observed that the matter is left to the good
sense of the customs authorities to take appropriate steps
to avoid further litigation. In his order , there is no
reference to any claim of compensation for loss or damage to
goods. No appeal was preferred by the appellant against the
judgment of the learned single Judge. Only the respondents
had preferred appeals, which have been dismissed by the
Division Bench as stated above. In the circumstances,it is
not open to the appellant to claim in this appeal not merely
the reimbursement and demurrage and port charges but also
compensation for the alleged loss and damage to his goods.
Secondly, there is no proof of extent of damage or loss
to the goods.
The appellant is, therefore, not entitled to claim any
compensation or damages in this appeal. it is accordingly
dismissed. No costs.
C.A.No.12035 of 1996 @ S.L.P.(0) No.10287 of 1996
(M/s.Rishi Trade Centre)
For the reasons given hereinabove, this appeal to is
dismissed. No costs.