Page 195 - ELT_1st September 2020_Vol 373_Part 5

2020 ] QATAR AIRWAYS v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (AIR), CHENNAI 633
6. Since there was delay in transshipment as a result of which the peti-
tioner has been asked to pay transshipment and the demurrage by the Airport
Authority of India, Air Cargo Complex, Chennai.
7. The Chennai International Air Cargo Complex represented by
3rd/4th respondent is the custodian of imported goods within the Customs area
under Section 45 of the Customs Act, 1962 had demanded a sum of
Rs. 82,89,226/- vide its bills from the petitioner. After adjustments of the amount
paid by the petitioner, the final amount payable by the petitioner was quantified
as Rs. 65,46,830/-.
8. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner attempted to file ap-
plication for transshipment of cargo to Trivandrum which had arrived by Flight
Nos. QR.6270, 6272 and 6274 between 26-11-2009 and 13-12-2009. However, the
Customs Department delayed in receiving transhipment application and in com-
pleting the transshipment formalities and as a result of which there was delay
and therefore the petitioner has been visited with additional burden of trans-
shipment and demurrage charges by the Airport Authority of India (hereinafter
referred as AAI) represented by 3rd/4th respondent.
9. It is stated that the Customs Department refused to take applications
pending and the goods were allowed to be trannsshipped only from 30-11-2009
to 5-1-2010.
10. The petitioner therefore requested the 1st and 2nd respondents to
issue of “Detention Certificate” to claim waiver/remission from payment of de-
murrage charges from the 3rd/4th respondent at the earliest.
11. The petitioner submits that it sent a representation dated 11-12-2009
to the 2nd respondent, to permit transshipment of the imported cargo. In the said
letter, the petitioner had specifically complained that it transshipment cargo has
been stopped and that they are incurring huge demurrage charges in the hands
of the 4th respondent.
12. The 2nd respondent by its letter dated 14-12-2009 merely queried
the reasons for bringing the subject cargo to Chennai Airport instead of taking
directly to Trivandrum.
13. The petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent’s letter dated 14-12-
2009 clearly brings out the fact that the Customs Department has not denied dif-
ficulty experienced by it in processing the transshipment applications of the peti-
tioner. It is further submitted that by not permitting the petitioner to transship
the cargo amounted to detention of the goods and therefore, the least the Cus-
toms Department could do was to issue “Detention Certificate” to the petitioner
for it to claim waiver/remission of such amount from the 3rd and the 4th re-
spondent.
14. It is further submitted that it is not an unusual practice of the peti-
tioner and it has been transshipping the cargo for quite some time through the
Chennai Port.
15. It is submitted that query raised in letter dated 14-12-2009 by the
2nd respondent was also not bona fide and intended to deflect the in-house prob-
lem faced by the Customs Department at that point of time.
16. The petitioner replied to the letter dated 14-12-2009 of the 2nd re-
spondent and stated that the reasons for bringing the goods to Chennai. Subse-
quently, the 2nd respondent accorded transshipment permission for the goods
after an inordinate delay of more than three days and in some cases the delay has
been extended to twenty eight days.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st September 2020  195