Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Commissioner Of Customs And Central ... vs Sujana Steels Ltd., Hyd. And Another on 17 October, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(6)ALD713, 2000(6)ALT195, 2001(74)ECC319, 2002(141)ELT51(AP)
ORDER S.R. Nayak, J.
1. Heard the learned Senior Standing Counsel for Government of India. When the writ petition was heard, the learned Standing Counsel for Government of India had vehemently argued that the Customs authorities were under no obligation to reimburse the storage and demurrage charges. On a careful consideration and necessary reflection and having due regard to the settled position in law, we rejected that contention and we observed as under:
"....... Customs authorities are statutory/ public authorities and the reasonableness of their actions is required to be tested on the touchstone of postulates of reasonableness and non-arbitrariness flowing from Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the stand taken by the learned senior Standing Counsel for Central Government appearing for respondents 1 to 3 Customs authorities in that regard is not tenable".
2. Neverthless, the learned Standing Counsel for Government of India would contend before us that the functions discharged by the Customs Department being quasi-judicial in nature, the postulates of Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be attracted even if detention of goods was unlawful and the liability to pay demurrage and storage charges cannot be placed on or passed on to the Customs Department under no circumstance, Learned Senior Standing Counsel placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court Trustees of Port of Madras v. Nagavedu Lungi & Co. and others, and International Airports Authority of India v. Grand Slam International, . This contention has to be noticed only to be rejected. It is trite law that the postulates of Article 14, viz., non-arbitrariness, reasonableness and fairness in action flowing from Article 14 should undoubtedly guide and correct the actions of the Customs Department too. Their actions are not beyond the pale of Article 14 scrutiny.
3. We are at a loss to understand how the above two judgements of the Supreme Court are of any help to the Review Petitioner. In Trustees Board of Madras case (supra), the Supreme Court had to consider the question whether the trial Court was justified in dismissing the suit filed by the Trustees of Board of Madras against the defendants therein for recovery of demurrage charges and other incidental charges. The Supreme Court after referring to and considering the dictum in International Airports Authority of India case (supra), rightly found fault with the trial Court and the High Court in dismissing the suit, and decreed the suit.
4. In the instant case, the entitlement of the Central Ware-Housing Corporation to claim storage and demurrage charges is not and cannot be in dispute in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of International Airports Authority of India case (supra). This Court in the judgement which is sought to be reviewed has recognized the entitlement of the Central Ware Housing Corporation to demand storage and demurrage charges from the petitioner, but, the Court having found that the Customs Department had committed a wrongful act and on account of that wrongful act, the importer had to bear the brunt of paying storage and demurrage charges, applied Article 14 postulates to the fact- situation of the case and thought it reasonable and fair to direct the Customs Department to pay the demurrage and storage charges to the Warehousing Corporation.
5. We do not find any ground whatsoever to review our judgement. The Review WPMP is, therefore, dismissed. However, 15 days time granted by this Court to the Customs Department to pay the storage and demurrage charges to the fourth respondent in the writ petition is extended by another 15 days from today.