LexOM SHANKAR BIYANI versus BOARD OF TRUSTEES, PORT OF CALCUTTA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
T
OM SHANKAR BIY AN!
A
v.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES, PORT OF CALCUTTA AND ORS.
FEBRUARY 22, 2002
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.]
B
Major Port Trusts Act: Sections 58, 59 and 62.
Import of goods for home consumption-Seizure of-Assessment of duty
by Customs Authority-liability of payment of Port charges-On the bailor to C
pay the Board before removal of goods.
Lien on goods-Board has a statutory lien towards rate and entitled to
retain goods until storage charges are paid-Exercise of lien on goods no bar
to recover storage charges-Non payment of port charges-Power of Board- D
Exercise of-Board being a statutory body may take recourse to law and
could have sold off the goods.
Appellant had imported into India, a consignment of bearings for home
consumption and submitted a Bill of Entry for clearance of the goods. In the
meanwhile, Revenue seized the goods under Section 110 of the Customs Act. E
Aggrieved, Appellant moved the High Court by filing a Writ Petition.
However, Board of Trustee was not made a party. High Court in its interim
order allowed the appellant to clear the goods on payment of duty assessed
on the basis of C.I.F. Values provided the appellant furnished a bank
guarantee for the differential amount of duty after proper assessment of goods
by the Customs Authorities. Customs Authorities moved for modification of F
the interim orde.r. High Court modified its order and directed that goods could
be stored in a bonded warehouse of the Customs Authorities. This time also
Board of Trustees was not made a party. Appellant, with a view to take
advantage of the modified order sought to transfer the goods into the bonded
warehouse of the Customs Authorities, without payment of the charges due G
to the Board of Trustee~ but the Board did not allow the same. Subsequently,
the Board joined the proceeding and High Court passed further order in the
m{ltter on 2nd February, 1990, permitting the appellant to remove the goods
witilout payment of Port charges on the appellant undertaking to pay all
charg~ and Customs duty upon an effective adjudication of the matter.
19
H
A
20
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2002] 2 S.C.R.
Aggrieved, the Board filed an appeal, and the Appellate Court stayed
the order. In the meanwhile Customs Authority withdrew its seizure order.
Thus, appellant could clear the goods by payment of due charges but made
no efforts to clear the goods, knowing fully well that further demurrage
charges would be incurred. Subsequently, Single Judge of the High Court
B disposed of the Writ Petition and directed the Customs Authorities to complete
adjudication proceedings within stipulated time and if adjudication
proceedings were decided in favour of the appellant, then the Customs
Authorities would pay the demurrage charges for the period of detention of
goods. High Court further held that by not allowing the removal of goods,
the Board had exercised its right to lien, therefore, it was not entitled to claim
C any demurrage charges beyond 2nd February, 1990. It was also held that if
the appellant paid the demurrage charges upto February 2, 1990, Customs
Authorities would reimburse the same to the appellant The Board filed an
appeal against the said order. By an interim order appellants were permitted
to clear the goods on payment of demurrage charges upto 2nd February, 1990
,D
and on furnishing a Bank Guarantee in favour of the Board for the period
3rd February, 1990 till the date of Bank Guarantee. Appellants did not pay
the demurrage charges nor furnished Bank Guarantee. In the meanwhile,
Board had applied to the appellate Court for permission to sell the goods.
Court vide its order dated 10.1.1992 did not express any opinion, instead asked
the Board to decide the course of action itself. The appeal was finally disposed
E of by setting aside the Order of Single Judge. It was also held that the Board
can recover charges for the entire period the goods remained with it. Hence
this appeal.
It was contended for the appellant that the right of lien under Section
59 of the Major Port Trusts Act is similar to a lien exercised by a bailee under
F Sectio,n 171 of the Indian Contract Act; and that once a right of lien has been
exercised the bailee cannot charge rent for storage of goods; and that it was
the duty of the Board to have sold the goods under Section 62 of the Major
Port Trusts Act, so that further demurrage charges were not incurred sinExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.