Page 230 - ELT_1st September 2020_Vol 373_Part 5

668 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

18. We have heard, Mr. Rajat Gaur, Learned Counsel appearing on be-
half the petitioner and Mr. Pramod Bahuguna, Learned Counsel for the respond-
ents, at length and have pursued the case records in detail.
19. The issue before us, sublimates down to the question whether the
Court can direct the Respondent No. 4, CCI to waive the demurrage charge and
whether the Court can direct the other respondents to pay/remit the demurrage
charges.
20. The issue at hand, is squarely covered by our judgment rendered on
20th December, 2019 in Global Impex v. Manager, CELBI Import Shed
[MANU/DE/435l/2019].
21. The petitioner, therein, had filed a Bill of Entry, dated 3rd May,
2019, for import of unbranded readymade garments. A request for first check of
the consignment was also made. Consequent thereupon, the consignment was,
purportedly, subjected to 100% examination. However, on 6th May, 2019, the
consignment was put on hold, for further examination, by the Commissioner of
Customs (Preventive). Thereafter it was found that the goods were misdeclared
in quantity, and thus, vide Panchnama dated 9th May, 2019, the Commissioner
seized the consignment and handed it over, to CELEBI for safe custody, vide let-
ter dated 10th May, 2019.
22. Therefore, in Global Impex [MANU/DE/435l/2019] the rationale as
set out by us, after analysing a catena of judgments, is as follows :
“104. From the aforecited decisions, the following clear principles
emerge :
(i) The custodian has a lien over the imported goods, consigned
to its custody. This lien may be statutory, as provided under
the IAA Act, all the Major Port Trusts Acts, or contractual. It
may also be relatable to Sections 170 and 171 of the Indian
Contract Act, 1872.
(ii) This lien entitles the custodian to retain hold of the goods,
consigned to its custody, till all its dues, including ground rent
and demurrage, are paid.
(iii) The Customs authorities have no power, or the jurisdiction, to
issue any instruction, to the custodian, requiring the custodian
to waive, in whole or in part, the demurrage chargeable by it.
Of course, this would be subject to any stipulation, in the stat-
utory or other instrument governing the affairs of the custodi-
an, to the effect that, where the detention certificate was issued
by the Customs authorities, the importer would be entitled to
waiver of demurrage, in whole or in part. In the absence of any
such stipulation, statutory or otherwise, the Customs authorities
could not, by issuance of the detention certificate, or by any other
communication, direct the custodian not to charge demurrage, or to
waive the whole, or part, of the demurrage chargeable by it.
(iv) In applying the above principles, the issue of whether the goods in
question had been licitly, or illicitly, imported, as also the detention
of the goods, by the Customs authorities, was justified or unjustified,
bona fide or mala fide, are entirely irrelevant.
(v) The liability to pay the demurrage is on the importer, irrespective of
the justifiability, or unjustifiability, of the seizure and detention of
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st September 2020  230