IAL INDIA LTD Vs. KANDLA PORT TURST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a Company, has called in question the communication dated 13.10.2008 issued by the second respondent Assistant Traffic Manager (Containers), Kandla Port Trust whereby, the petitioner had been requested to deposit sufficient ground rent/dwell time charges before release of its container and seeks a direction to the respondents to release the container of the petitioner company immediately.

(2.) The factual background which has given rise to the present petition is as follows:

(3.) By an order dated 28.08.2009, this court took note of the fact that the cargo having already been de-stuffed on 19.3.2008, the only question that remained was of releasing the container, subject to payment of demurrage charges on the said container. The court observed that it was not in dispute that de-stuffed cargo was lying in the custody of the respondents, who were authorized/entitled to auction the same and appropriate the required amount from the proceeds thereof towards charges leviable by them. Excess, if any, was to be paid to the importer, subject to any other charges leviable from the amount received by any other person like in the present case, the petitioner shipping line. The court, accordingly, directed the respondents to undertake the exercise of auctioning the cargo as early as possible and to place the details of the amount realized in the auction along with the details of the amount leviable by the respondents and the amount leviable from the shipping line. Subsequently, by an order dated 1.10.2009, it was recorded that the learned counsel for the respondents had submitted a sheet showing various amounts like payment for the charges on the container, sale proceeds of the de-stuffed cargo, deduction under the head of sale expenses, customs duty, demurrage on goods after de-stuffing, and had appraised the court that there was a deficit of Rs.29,868/- (approximately) towards various charges leviable on the de-stuffed cargo as the sale proceeds of the de-stuffed cargo fell short. This was without taking into consideration the amount payable as demurrage on the container. The learned counsel for the respondents had clarified that the figures set out in the worksheet were tentative.