Page 197 - ELT_1st September 2020_Vol 373_Part 5

2020 ] QATAR AIRWAYS v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (AIR), CHENNAI 635

permit them to file transshipment application on time and therefore request was
sent to the 1st respondent on 11-12-2009 to permit transshipment of the subject
goods. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the following
judgments :
(i) Shipping Corporation of India Limited v. C.L. Jain Woolen Mills, 2001
(129) E.L.T. 561 (S.C.).
(ii) Agrim Sampada Limited v. UOI, 2004 (168) E.L.T. 15 (Del.)
(iii) R.K. Enterpries v. Board of Trustees, Chennai Port Trust, 2010 (257)
E.L.T. 67 (Mad.).
(iv) Mumbai Port Trust v. Shri Lakshmi Steels, 2017 (352) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.).
(v) Trip Communication Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Others, order dated
28-3-2014 passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P. (C). No. 7438 of
2018 [2014 (302) E.L.T. 321 (Del.)].
28. The respondents have filed their counter affidavits. According to
the 1st and 2nd respondents, the imported cargos were allowed to be tran-
shipped as and when the applications were filed. The applications were pro-
cessed without delay and therefore there is no question of issue of any “Deten-
tion Certificate” to recommend waiver of transshipment charges and the demur-
rages. He further submitted that the petitioner has suppressed material fact re-
garding the rejection of the request by the 3rd and the 4th respondents.
29. The Learned Counsel for the 1st and the 2nd respondents submitted
that even if there was a delay on the part of the Customs Authority, though
which is not the case here, the petitioner was guilty of not filing the transship-
ment application in time and there is no evidence to substantiate the delay and
therefore the petitioner cannot claim any waiver from payment of demurrage
and detention charges.
30. It was further submitted that it was however open for the petitioner
to approach the 3rd and the 4th respondents for waiver in accordance with pro-
visions of the Airports Authority of India (Storage and Processing of Cargo, Cou-
rier and Express Goods and Postal Mail) Regulations, 2003. The said application
was also rejected by the 3rd/4th respondent which fact has been suppressed in
this writ petition.
31. He drew my attention to paragraph 37 of the decision in Mumbai
Port Trust v. Shri Lakshmi Steels, 2017 (352) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.), wherein, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that it is the importer alone is liable to pay the demurrage
charges. It is submitted that Regulation 6 of the Handling of Cargo in Customs
Area Regulations, 2009 is not applicable.
32. He further submits that the 3rd and the 4th respondents are entitled
to collect the charges under the provision of the Airports Authority of India
(Storage and Processing of Cargo, Courier and Express Goods and Postal Mail)
Regulations, 2003. Further, the request for “Detention Certificate” was belated
and not bona fide and such certificate cannot be granted as a matter of right.
33. The Learned Counsel also submitted that the newspaper report
which were circulated during hearing in the additional typed-set of documents
were intended to prejudice the mind of the Court. It is further submitted that the
news items that there were arrests has to be examined from the prism of Section
81 of the Evidence Act. News items from newspaper cannot be treated as proof of
the facts stated therein. It is submitted that the content of newspaper are hearsay
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st September 2020  197