Page 207 - ELT_1st September 2020_Vol 373_Part 5

2020 ] QATAR AIRWAYS v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (AIR), CHENNAI 645

45 provides that all imported goods imported in a Customs area must re-
main in the custody of the person who has been approved by the Collector
of Customs until they are cleared and such person is obliged not to permit
them to be removed from the customs area or otherwise dealt with except
under and in accordance with the permission of the Customs Officer. Sec-
tion 45 does not state that such person shall not be entitled to recover
charges from the importer for such period as the Customs Authorities
direct.
42. The purpose of the Customs Act on the one hand and the Major Port
Trusts Act and the International Airports Authority Act on the other hand
are different. The former deals with the collection of Customs duties on im-
ported goods. The latter deals with the maintenance of seaports and air-
ports, the facilities to be provided thereat and the charges to be recovered
therefor. An importer must land the imported goods at a seaport or airport.
He can clear them only after completion of Customs formalities. For this
purpose, the seaports and airports are approved and provide storage facili-
ties and Customs Officers are accommodated therein to facilitate clearance.
For the occupation by the imported goods of space in the seaport or airport,
the Board or the Authority which is its proprietor is entitled to charge the
importer. That until Customs clearance, the Board or the Authority may not
permit the importer to remove his goods from its premises, does not imply
that it may not charge the importer for the space his goods have occupied
until their clearance.
* * *
44. It cannot be gainsaid that, by reason of unjustified detention of his
goods by the Customs Authorities, the importer is put to loss by having to
pay demurrage charges for the periods of such detention. The Central Gov-
ernment is empowered by Section 35 of the International Airports Authori-
ty Act, 1971 and Section 111 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 to issue to
the Authority and the Board of Trustees, respectively, directions on ques-
tions of policy after giving them an opportunity, as far as practicable, of ex-
pressing their views. The Central Government can, if so advised, after giv-
ing to the Authority and the Board of Trustees the opportunity of express-
ing their views, direct them, under the aforementioned provisions, not to
levy demurrage charges for periods covered by detention certificates.”
80. Hon’ble Venkatachala, J. as he was then in his concurring judgment,
after referring to the various judgments of the Court cited held as follows, -
“66. From the above decisions of this Court it becomes clear that
an authority created under a statute even if is the custodian of the
imported goods because of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1961,
would be entitled to charge demurrages for the imported goods in its cus-
tody and make the importer or consignee liable for the same even for peri-
ods during which he/it was unable to clear the goods from the customs ar-
ea, due to fault on the part of the Customs Authorities or of other authori-
ties who might have issued detention certificates owning such fault.
* * *
69. Therefore, my answer to the question considered by me is in
the negative i.e. the Collector of Customs empowered under sub-
section (1) of Section 45 of the Customs Act, 1962 to approve per-
sons to be custodians of imported goods in customs areas until they
are cleared as provided for therein, while approving the
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st September 2020  207