PHOENIX PRINTING CO P LTD Vs. MYSORE SALES INTERNATIONAL LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Complainant placed an order on 18-7-1984 with M/s. Kohli Graphic Systems Ltd. , New Delhi, for the import of Dr. Hell Chromograph C-99 - Colour scanner, at-1,85,000 DM from West Germany. The Complainant was informed that the equipment has been shipped from Frank Furt to Bangalore via Bombay, under Airway Bill No. AWB.098-46227683 dated 20-9-1985 in two cases whose gross weight was 1,567 Kgs. The Comptt. received intimation on 5-10-1985 from the Foreign Cargo Arrival Section of the Indian Airlines, Bangalore Airport, to the effect that under Airway Bill No.46227683, two cases had arrived, weighing 1,567 kgs by flight No. IC 107 on 4-101985 and that it would be deposited at the Airport Customs, Bangalore, and to collect the delivery order on presentation of the notice. The Complainant was also informed that the consignment was to be cleared from Customs by the Complainant or by the licensed clearing agent and that it will be stored free by the Customs for seven days and thereafter demurrages will accure and that the cargo was handed over by the Customs to the Mysore Sales International Ltd. , at Bangalore Airport Complex as per the usual standing arrangement between the Customs on the one hand and the M. S. I. L. on the other. The M. S. I. L. informed the complainant that the goods consigned have been lying in the Import Warehouse uncleared for over six weeks an asked him to take action to clear the consignment. The MSIL also wrote to the Complainant on 7-2-1986 to clear the consignment after paying Rs.11,776.30p. towards handling and storage charges and warned the complainant that if he fails to clear the consignment, the cargo will be sold to recover the charges. On 22-2-1986, the complainant set a telegram to M/s. Kohli Graphic Systems at Delhi to depute and Engineer to inspect the machinery. The Complainant was not able to clear the goods, as the development loan sanctioned to him could not be released by the State Government for want of necessary budget sanction. According to the Complainant, his goods were stored by the Respondent in the open yard and they were damaged. Hence, he has filed this complaint for directing the Respondents to replace at their cost the machinery imported, and for compensation of Rs.2 lakhs.

(2.) The complaint is resisted by contended inter alia, that there is no privity of contract between the Complainant and the Respondent as the goods were entrusted to the respondent's custody by the Customs Authorities and not by the Complainant: that the Complainant has no title to the goods as the goods have been confiscated by the Customs Authorities after due notice to the Complainant under Sec.48 of the Customs Act, as per Order dated 24-5-1990 made under Sec.111 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Sec.32 of the Export and Import Act. As we are disposing off the complaint on the said contentions it is unnecessary to repeat other defects taken by the Respondent

(3.) On behalf of the Complainant, a Memo is filed stating that the Complainant has preferred Revision Petition before the National Commission, against the Order dated 2-11-1991 rejecting the complainant's application filed in this Commission to implead the Customs Collectorate at Bangalore as Respondent No.3 to this complaint. The Complainant's representative wants the hearing of the complaint adjourned on that ground. We see no reason to adjourn the hearing.