Page 206 - ELT_1st September 2020_Vol 373_Part 5

644 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

Authority of India cannot charge any rent or demurrage on the seized or de-
tained or confiscated goods by the Superintendent of Customs or Appraiser or
Inspector of Customs or Preventive officer or examining officer, as the case may
be. This was perhaps framed in line with Public Notice No. 111 of 1985 dated
29-7-1985 of Bombay Customs House.
69. The petitioner is insisting for the “detention certificate” from the 1st
respondent so that the 3rd and the 4th respondents can be persuaded to not to
charge any rent or demurrage on the imported goods which [transshipped] from
the Chennai Airport.
70. The Superintendent of Customs or the Appraiser or the Inspector of
Customs or the preventive officer or examining officer as the case may be can
exercise the power to recommend waiver of demurrage and other charges that
are chargeable by the custodian of the goods in whose place/premises the goods
are stored before being transshipped.
71. In Trustees of the Port of Madras v. M/s. Aminchand Pyarelal, (1976) 3
SCC 167, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the Port Trusts were under a
statutory obligation to render services of various kinds in the larger public and
national interest.
72. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also observed that the demurrage
charges are levied in order to ensure quick clearance of the cargo from the har-
bour and the rates are fixed in such a way that they would make it unprofitable
for the importer to use the port premises as a warehouse. In case there is conges-
tion in the port it would affect the free movement of ships and of essential goods.
Therefore, the scale of rates had to be framed in such a manner that it worked
both as an incentive to the importers to remove the goods as expeditiously as
possible from the transit areas and also acted as a disincentive to keep the goods
in the premises of the Board for a long time, thereby increasing the demurrage
charges substantially with passage of time.
73. The Court further held that the High Court [xxx] was in error in
holding that the Board’s power to charge demurrage was limited to cases where
the goods were not removed from its premises due to some fault or negligence
on the part of the importer.
74. The Court thus held that it was the duty of the Board to recover
rates; the Board had a lien on the goods and the right to seize and detain the
goods, until the rates were fully paid and to sell the goods if the rates were not
paid and recover the same. It was held that certain concessions may be given tak-
ing into account the hardship of the importers, but the legality of the rates cannot
be questioned.
75. The Court further went on to hold that the importer of the goods was liable
to pay the demurrage charges even if the importer was not responsible for any delay, or
any fault could be attributed to the importer.
76. In International Airports Authority v. Grand Slam International, (1995)
3 SCC 151 = 1995 (77) E.L.T. 753 (S.C.), the Hon’ble Supreme Court took note of
Section 45 of the Customs Act and held as follows :
“41. None of these provisions entitles the Collector of Customs to debar
the collection of demurrage for the storage of imported goods. They do not
entitle him to impose conditions upon the proprietors of ports or airports
before they can be approved as customs ports or customs airports. Section

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st September 2020  206