Dismissed

Sampat Raj Dugar. v. the Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay.

Bombay HC16 Aug 2005WP/1432/1993

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the court dismissed the petitioner's challenge after holding that the controversy was fully covered by an Apex Court decision. The court ruled that the IAAI is entitled to collect custody charges, and the Collector of Customs cannot direct release of goods without such payment.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; Rule discharged with no order as to costs.

Sampat Raj Dugar. Vs the Board of Trustees of the… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
 WRIT PETITION NO.1432 OF 1993

¶2

 Sampat Raj Dugar. .. Petitioner

¶3

Vs.

¶4

 The Board of Trustees of the
 Port of Bombay & Anr. .. Respondents

¶5

--

¶6

 None for the petitioner.

¶7

 Shri Umesh Shetty i/b Mulla & Mulla & Craigie Blunt
 and Caroe for the respondents.

¶8

--

¶9

 CORAM : R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR &
 V.M.KANADE, JJ.

¶10

 DATED : 16th AUGUST, 2005.
 P.C.

¶11

 1. None present for the petitioner. Shri Shetty,

¶12

 the learned Advocate is present for the respondents.

¶13

 2. Heard. Perused the records. Considering the
 facts of the case and the issue involved in the matter
 and bearing in mind the decision of the Apex Court in
International Airports Authority of India and Others
v. Grand Slam International and Others, reported in
 (1995)3 SCC 151, the controversy sought to be raised
 in this petition is fully covered by the said decision
 of the Apex Court wherein it has been observed thus:-

¶14

 "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

¶15

 - 2 -

¶16

 charge demurrages for the imported goods in
 its custody and make the importer or consignee
 liable for the same even for periods during
 which he/it was unable to clear the goods from
 the customs area, due to fault on the part of
 the Customs Authorities or of other
 authorities who might have issued detention
 certificates owning such fault.

¶17

 Thus, the above decisions of this Court which
 uphold the power of Port Trusts created under
 Ports Act to levy and collect demurrage
 charges for goods they keep as custodians for
 Customs Department from the consignees
 notwithstanding the detention certificates
 issued by the Customs Department clearly
 support the view I have taken that the IAAI,
 an authority constituted under the
 International Airports Authority Act, 1971,
 when is entitled to collect charges for
 keeping custody of the imported goods by
 regulations made thereunder and according to
 its policy, the Collector of Customs or his
 delegatee could not direct the IAAI by
 issuance of a detention certificate to release
 the goods of the importer without collection

¶18

 - 3 -

¶19

 of the charges liable to be paid in respect
 thereof, inasmuch as the Collector of Customs
 or his delegatee has not been empowered under
 the provisions of the Act or its Rules or its
 Regulations to direct release of the imported
 goods without collection of keeping charges,
 for the keeping of which by the IAAI, charges
 are to be paid under the Rules made under the
 International Airports Authority Act, 1971."

¶20

 3. In view of the said decision, nothing survives
 in this petition, and the petition is therefore liable
 to be dismissed relying upon the said decision quoted
 above.

¶21

 4. During the pendency of these proceedings, the
 respondents had preferred Special Leave Petition to
 the Apex Court wherein the interim order passed by
 this Court was modified to the extent that instead of
 bond, the petitioner was required to furnish bank
 guarantee in clearance of the goods as the goods were
 to be re-exported.

¶22

 5. In view of the disposal of the present
 petition and disposal of the claim of the petitioner,
 needless to say that the respondents would be entitled

¶23

 - 4 -

¶24

 to encash the said bank guarantee. With these
 observations, the petition is dismissed. Rule is
 discharged with no order as to costs.

¶25

 (R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR, J)

¶26

 ( V.M.KANADE, J)

Sampat Raj Dugar. v. the Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sampat Raj Dugar. v. the Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Charandas Megji and Ors. Vs State of Mah.and Ors.

Shriram R Patel Vs the Mun Corpn of Gr Bombay

A.D. Mahadik and Ors. Vs B.M.C. of Gr. Bombay and Ors.