Page 194 - ELT_1st September 2020_Vol 373_Part 5

632 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

CASES CITED
Agrim Sampada Ltd. v. Union of India — 2004 (168) E.L.T. 15 (Del.) — Referred ........................ [Para 27]
Board of Trustees v. Jai Hind Oil Mills Company — 1987 (30) E.L.T. 633 (S.C.) — Relied on ..... [Para 66]
International Airports Authority of India v. Grandslam International
— 1995 (77) E.L.T. 753 (S.C.) — Relied on ........................................................................... [Paras 76, 80]
Jindal Drugs Ltd. v. Union of India — 2018 (361) E.L.T. 769 (S.C.) — Referred ............................. [Para 33]
Kunjikoya Vallana Kunnummal v. Chairman, Cochin Port Trust
— 2016 (344) E.L.T. 810 (Ker.) — Referred ................................................................................. [Para 33]
Mumbai Port Trust v. Shri Lakshmi Steels — 2017 (352) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.)
— Relied on ..................................................................................................... [Paras 27, 31, 33, 77, 81, 87]
R.K. Enterprises v. Board of Trustees — 2010 (257) E.L.T. 67 (Mad.) — Referred .......................... [Para 27]
Ravinder Kumar Sharma v. State of Assam — (1999) 7 SCC 435 — Referred................................. [Para 33]
Shipping Corpn. of India Ltd. v. C.L. Jain Woolen Mills — 2001 (129) E.L.T. 561 (S.C.)
— Referred ....................................................................................................................................... [Para 27]
Trip Communication Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India — 2014 (302) E.L.T. 321 (Del.)
— Relied on ........................................................................................................................ [Paras 27, 64, 84]
Trustees of Port of Madras v. Nagavedu Lungi & Co. — 1995 (80) E.L.T. 241 (S.C.)
— Relied on ..................................................................................................................................... [Para 80]
Trustees of the Port of Madras v. Aminchand Pyarelal — (1976) 3 SCC 167 — Relied on ........... [Para 71]
DEPARTMENTAL CLARIFICATIONS CITED
Commissioner of Customs, Bombay, Public Notice No. 111/1985, dated 29-7-1985 ................... [Para 66]
C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 69/99-Cus., dated 6-10-1999 ...................................................................... [Para 44]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Hari Radhakrishnan, for the Petitioner.
S/Shri S.R. Sundar and R. Parthiban, for the
Respondent.
[Order]. - In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the im-
pugned communication dated 10-3-2010 bearing reference F. No. S. Misc.
22/2009-(T.S.) ACC, passed by the 1st respondent Commissioner of Customs
(Air).
2. By the impugned communication, the 1st respondent Commissioner
of Customs has rejected the application filed for issue of “Detention Certificate”
to the petitioner to claim waiver of Transshipment Charges billed by the Inte-
grated Air Cargo Complex, Airport Authority of India, Meenambakkam, Chen-
nai-600027 (Air Cargo Complex for brevity), represented by the 3rd/4th re-
spondent.
3. Petitioner an international airlines company engaged in transporta-
tion of goods and passengers has been issued with Demurrages and Transship-
ment charges by the 3rd/4th respondent for delay in transshipping the cargo
brought by them for being transshipped to Trivandrum International Airport
during the period between 26-11-2009 and 13-12-2009.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that since it has wide-bodied cargo air-
crafts and since there is no facility for landing of such aircrafts in Trivandrum,
the petitioner brought the cargo in these aircrafts to the Chennai International
Airport for being transshipped to Trivandrum/Calicut by road.
5. The cargoes meant for being discharged at the Trivandrum Air Car-
go Complex were transshipped from Chennai Air Cargo Complex by road in its
bonded vehicles after some delay.

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st September 2020  194