SANJOY CHANDRANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short question of law that arises for decision in this writ application is whether the writ petitioner is liable to pay interest under Section 61(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 for the periods prior to the actual physical warehousing of consignments of goods imported by the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner placed an order for 1G00 great gross of snap fasteners iron made, size VT 7 of Japanese origin with M/s. Ceasar Industries Limited, Hong Kong. The said foreign supplier shipped three consignments packed in 120, 100 and 100 cartons respectively out of the total quantity of 1000 great gross. The said three consignments arrived in the port of Calcutta between 10th of July, 1989 and 17th of August, 1989. Between 1st of October, 1989 and 24th of October, 1989, the writ petitioner through his clearing agent filed three separate bills of entry for warehousing in respect of the aforesaid three consignments. On 20th of October, 1989 and 26th of October, 1989 the said bills of entry were duly assessed by the Assistant Collector of Customs under Section 47 of the Customs Act. The duty payable by the petitioner for the aforesaid three consignments were assessed in the said bills of entry.

(2.) According to the writ petitioner, on 3-11-1989 the Import Bond Department of the Customs Authorities endorsed the bond numbers. Representations were made on behalf of the writ petitioner to the Assistant Collector of Customs stating therein that due to financial difficulties, the petitioner had not been able to return (sic retire?) the documents in respect of the aforesaid three consignments. The writ petitioner further represented before the Assistant Collector of Customs that the three consignments should be warehoused on the grounds stated in the said representation. The customs authorities illegally refused to warehouse the said goods on the ground that three months had already elapsed since 3rd of November, 1989 when the bond numbers were endorsed on the said bills of entry by the Import Bond Department of the Customs House. The writ petitioner, therefore, ought to have cleared the goods from the [dock] by filing 'X' Bond bills of entry. It is not in dispute that since the arrival of the said goods at the dock, they were lying in the dock and were never physically warehoused till a direction was made by this Court on this writ application.

(3.) In the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove, the present writ application had been moved by the writ petitioner for a direction upon the customs authority to warehouse the said three consignments under Sec. 59 of the Customs Act and also for an order that the writ petitioners were not liable to pay any interest prior to the actual physical warehousing of the aforesaid three consignments. A further prayer was also made by the writ petitioner that a direction be given to the customs authority to allow warehousing of the three consignments under Section 59 of the Customs Act at the cost of the writ petitioner without any payment of interest prior to expiry of 90 days from the date of actual physical warehousing of the goods imported. Before deciding the question of law raised in this writ application as referred to hereinabove, I must mention one more fact in this connection. K.M. Yusuf, J. (as His Lordship then was) on 14th September, 1990 allowed the writ petitioners to remove the said three consignments at their own cost subject to payment of all the charges in respect of the goods imported . By the said order the writ petitioner was, therefore, allowed to remove the goods on payment of duty and all other charges which included payment of interest charged by the authorities for not removing the goods in question. By an order dated 18th of December, 1991,I directed that the writ petitioner was entitled to release the aforesaid three consignments, if the writ petitioner deposited or paid all duty and other charges payable by the writ petitioner to the customs authority for removing the goods in question and also if he deposited a further sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-with the Collector of Customs as interest without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the writ petition. I have made it clear in the said order that in the event it is found by this Court at the time of disposal of this writ application that the writ petitioner is liable to pay interest as charged by the customs authorities, or any other amount that may be fixed as interest from them in excess of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-, the writ petitioner shall pay or deposit with the customs authority the said excess amount within the time that may be fixed by this Court. The Learned Advocate who appeared on behalf of the customs authority also gave an undertaking to this Court that the amount deposited or any amount that may be directed by this Court to be refunded at the time of Final disposal of the writ petition on account of interest would be refunded to the writ petitioner. I am informed that in terms of this order and on deposit of the amount as aforesaid the writ petitioners have already taken delivery of the aforesaid three consignments from the customs authorities. Therefore, the only question that remains to be decided in this writ petition is whether "the interest" is payable by the writ petitioner in terms of Section 61(2) of the Customs Act. For a proper decision on this question, it is necessary to deal with some of the relevant provisions of the Customs Act.