icon Line Vs. Commissioner of Customs

icon Line vs Commissioner of Customs

Type Court Judgment Court Mumbai Decided Oct 09, 2001

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/360258

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/360258
Court: Mumbai High Court
Judge: A.P. Shah and ;D.B. Bhosale, JJ.
Decided On: Oct 09, 2001
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 3570 of 2001
Subject: Customs

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Customs - consignment - in present case Court relied on precedent - liability of warehouse charges is that of consignee and not of ship owners or shipping agents - when goods are required to be detained for detailed examination or investigation goods shall be destuffed from containers and stored in bonded warehouses...

Key legal issue: Customs
Acts & sections: Constitution of India - Article 226

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

icon Line

Advocate V.R. Rambhadran, Adv.

Respondent

Commissioner of Customs

Advocate P.S. Jetly, Adv., i/b., H.D. Rathod, Adv., ;Amin Kharada, Adv., i/b., Advani & Co., ;S.I. Shah and ;S.N. Kantawala, Advs., i/b., Kantawala & Co.

Legal References

Acts: Constitution of India - Article 226
Reported In: 2002(143)ELT528(Bom)

Excerpt

.....desai & d.b. bhosale, jj] arrest of accused - held, a police officer or a person empowered to arrest may arrest a person without intervention of the court subject to the limitations specified under the provisions of the code. the provisions of section 41 of the code provides for arrest by a police officer without an order from a magistrate and without a warrant. a distinct and different power under section 44 of the code empowers the magistrate to arrest or order any person to arrest the offender. under section 44 of the code, that power is vested in the court of the magistrate when an offence is committed in his presence. if the legislature has taken care of providing such specific power under section 44 of the code, then there could be no reason for such a power not to be specified under the provisions of chapter xii of the code. in terms of section 41, a police officer may arrest a person without a warrant or order from the magistrate for any or all of the conditions specified in that provision. language of this provision clearly suggested that the police officer can arrest a person without an order from the magistrate. thus, there appears to be no reason why on the strength of section 156(3) of the code, any restriction should be read into the power specifically granted by the legislature to the police officer. of course, freedom of investigation is the essence of these provisions but in order to suppress the mischief it is sufficiently indicated under different provisions of the code that the arresting officer should exercise his power or discretion judiciously and should be free of motive. some kind of inbuilt safeguard is available to the accused in the cases where the magistrate directs investigation under section 156 (3) of the code by taking recourse to the provisions of section 438 of the code by approaching the court of session or the high court for such relief. thus, during the course of investigation of a criminal case, an accused is not ..........our attention is also drawn to the circular dated 19-11-1999 issued by the ministry of finance, govt. of india, whereby it has been provided that in case the goods are required to be detained for detailed examination, investigation, etc. the goods shall be destuffed from the containers and stored in bonded warehouses and containers shall be released. the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners stated that the petitioners will deposit the warehouse charges for the period from 1-8-2000 to 1-10-2000 as per the circular. upon payment of such charges the 3rd respondent is directed to destuff the goods from the containers and return the containers to the petitioners and store the goods in bonded warehouse. as regards warehouse charges from 1-10-2000, the 4th respondent is directed to deposit with respondent no. 350% of such charges for the period from 1-10-2000 till date within 2 weeks and continue to pay the charges till the goods are cleared. respondent no. 4 shall bear the charges for transport of the goods to bonded warehouse.parties to act on an ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated as true copy by the court sheristedar/associate of this court.

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. Heard the learned Counsel.

2. Rule. Hearing expedited.

3. The petitioners are the ship owners and shipping agents respectively and the 4th respondent is the consignee of the consignment of furnace oil. The customs have initiated investigation in respect of the said consignment to identify whether has to be obtained by them which they have not done before import. The Customs want to carry out further tests in order to find out whether the waste oil is hazardous. This is supposed to be done in view of the orders passed by the Supreme Court in a PIL.

4. By an order dated 5-2-2000 passed in Writ Petition No. 5496 of 2000, statement of the learned Counsel for the Customs was recorded to the effect that a show cause notice will be issued within a period of 3 weeks and the petitioners therein i.e. 4th respondent will file reply thereto within 1 week and the final adjudication will be done within a period of 2 weeks therefrom. The show cause notice has been issued and replies have been filed. Mr. Jetly, the learned Counsel appearing for the Customs, however, stated that further tests will have to be carried out in order to ascertain whether the waste oil is hazardous in nature. He stated that for the said purpose samples will be taken in the presence of consignees and necessary tests will be carried out by the Indian Institute of Oceanography at Goa and Shriram Institute of Industrial Research at New Delhi and after receipt of the reports from the said two institutions, a corrigendum to the show cause notice, if necessary, will be issued and in that event further opportunity of hearing will be given to the 4th respondent and after taking the same into consideration, appropriate orders will be passed within 4th weeks from the date of the reply. Mr. Jetly stated that the sample will be taken within a period of two days in presence of the respondent No. 4 and/or their representatives.

5. As far as petitioners are concerned, their prayer is for return of the containers. Our attention is invited to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Trustees of the Port of Madras through its Chairman v. K.P.V. Sheikh Mohd. Rowther & Co. Pvt. Ltd. : AIR 1995 SC1922 wherein it was held that the liability of the warehouse charges is that of the consignee and not of the ship owners or shipping agents. Our attention is also drawn to the circular dated 19-11-1999 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India, whereby it has been provided that in case the goods are required to be detained for detailed examination, investigation, etc. the goods shall be destuffed from the containers and stored in bonded warehouses and containers shall be released. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners stated that the petitioners will deposit the warehouse charges for the period from 1-8-2000 to 1-10-2000 as per the circular. Upon payment of such charges the 3rd respondent is directed to destuff the goods from the containers and return the containers to the petitioners and store the goods in bonded warehouse. As regards warehouse charges from 1-10-2000, the 4th respondent is directed to deposit with respondent No. 350% of such charges for the period from 1-10-2000 till date within 2 weeks and continue to pay the charges till the goods are cleared. Respondent No. 4 shall bear the charges for transport of the goods to bonded warehouse.

Parties to act on an ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated as true copy by the Court Sheristedar/Associate of this Court.

Same Court & Year Mumbai · 2001 Same Parties icon Line vs Commissioner of Customs Same Subject Customs Same Judge A.P. Shah and ;D.B. Bhosale, JJ. Acts & Sections Constitution of India - Article 226

Customs