Page 215 - ELT_15th July 2020_Vol 373_Part 2

2020 ] ALCATEL SUBMARINE NETWORKS UK LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA 197

(i) The petitioner is a company registered in United Kingdom and en-
gaged in the business of submarine network products and services.
The second respondent is the major port constituted under the Major
Port Trusts Act, 1963 and the same is under the control of the first re-
spondent and regulates all policy decisions relating to the Chennai
Port. One of the functions performed by the second respondent is to
collect the wharfage in respect of all cargo port in accordance with the
provisions contained in Major Port Trusts Act in conjunction with
Chennai Port Trust Scale of Rates Gazette No. 251, dated 27-8-2014
(Scale of rates) issued by the Tariff Authority for Major Ports ( herein-
after referred to as TAMP).
(ii) The vessel belonging to the petitioner Company arrived at the Chen-
nai Port on 27-1-2015, carrying fiber-optic cable and other submerged
equipment to be laid on the sea bed. The cable system to be laid on the
sea bed within the Indian Territorial Waters was imported to India by
Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited, in accordance with the provisions of
the Customs Act, 1962, the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and Rules and
Regulations framed thereunder.
(iii) The grievance of the petitioner Company is that the second respond-
ent Port authorities had declared their vessel itself as manifested cargo
and levied wharfage charges during the period of its berth in the
Chennai Port from the date it arrived on 27-1-2015 and left the Chen-
nai Port on 17-2-2015. The Port authorities have calculated the cargo
charges as Rs. 2,96,30,784/- Indian National Rupees (INR) on 17-2-
2015, to obtain port clearance. According to the Port authorities, the
wharfage charges were calculated under Item 36-A, Scale 1 - Schedule
of wharfage charges of Chapter - III, cargo related charges under the
Scale of Rates. Item 36-A of the said schedule reads “Items not other-
wise specified - other than bulk”. The petitioner had no choice except
to pay the amount in compliance with the demand in order to leave
the Port on its further journey.
(iv) The principle contention of the petitioner is that the wharfage charges
can be levied only on cargo and the authorities have no power to levy
wharfage charges on the vessel itself. Further, the TAMP itself has
subsequently passed an order on 15-5-2015, clarifying that the vessels
calling the port on a first voyage which are declared as cargo in the
import general manifest or export general manifest for the purpose of
the Customs Act, 1962, shall not be treated as cargo and no wharfage
shall be levied on such vessels.
3. The Learned Counsel, Ms. Mekhla Anand Rupa Roy, who appeared
for the petitioner would therefore submit that the wharfage is always leviable
only on the cargo not on the vessel itself and she would at the outset draw the
attention of this Court to the meaning of wharfage as given under Scale of Rates
of Chennai Port Trust in Gazette No. 251 dated 27-8-2014, which reads as fol-
lows :-

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th July 2020  215