- (1.) THE appellant was a consignee of cargo containing asbestos regarded as hazardous materials as per international specification prevalent at the material times. The goods were unloaded from the ship and after obtaining necessary clearance from the customs the goods were kept within the port area for which the Port Trust was entitled to landing and removal charges. It is the case of the appellant that out of 200 metric tons cargo 100 metric tons were cleared after payment of charges levied upon them by the Port trust. When the balance 100 metric tons were attempted to be taken delivery of, the Port Trust contended that they short-levied the charges earlier and as such the appellant was charged higher sum not only for the balance 100 metric tons, but also for the differential amount of charges paid for other 100 metric tons, which had already been cleared two months before. The Port Trust also issued notice under section 56 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, however after filing of the writ petition.
(2.) THE appellants approached the learned single Judge by filing the writ petition on the ground that it was obligatory on the part of the Port trust authorities to put the consignee on notice the appropriate rate at which they would have to pay the landing and removal charges. If there was any short-levy, only the Board was entitled to initiate proceeding and that too in terms of the provisions of section 56 of the said Act. No such notice was issued before filing of the writ petition. Even notice issued after filing of the writ petition, was by the official not authorized for the said purpose. The Port Trust authority filed affidavit-in-opposition where they admitted their mistake. They contended that through inadvertence lesser amount was charged. Cargo contained asbestos which was hazardous as per international specification. The official inadvertently treated the said cargo as non hazardous cargo and as such lesser amount was charged.
(3.) BEFORE the learned single Judge for the first time international specification was produced wherein the contention of the Port Trust was found to be correct. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants before the learned single Judge also admitted that asbestos was to be charged as hazardous cargo. He however, contended before His Lordship that in absence of proper publication of the schedule of rates the Port trust Authority was not entitled to charge at the higher rate. The learned single Judge negated such contention, in our view, very rightly. His Lordship dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this appeal.;