ORDER
Altamas Kabir, J.
1. The writ petitioner Company claims to be incorporated under the relevant laws of Singapore and carries on business of import and export of various materials from Singapore. According to the petitioner Company, it authorised one Shri Om Prakash Chowdhury, Advocate, as its lawful Attorney to represent it before the Customs authorities, Courts in India and/or any other Government authority, or body, relating to and/or in connection with any consignment and to appoint such legal practitioners as he thought fit and t proper for the above purposes and also to do all such deeds, acts and things as may be required for the purpose of reshipment of the consignment in question. The power of Attorney granted by the petitioner Company in favour of Shri Chowdhury is said to have been counter-signed by the Indian High Commissioner at Singapore.
2. According to the petitioner Company, in terms of the contract entered into by and between the Company and M/s. M.K. Enterprises, the Respondent No. 10 in the present writ proceedings, it raised six invoices and shipped consignments of 6 x 20 ft. containers of Electrolytic Copper Wire Rods to be off loaded at the port of Calcutta.
3. M/s. Mitsui OSK Lines Ltd., the re-shipping Company in question, issued six Bills of Lading notifying M/s. M.K. Enterprises that the goods in question had been shipped for being off loaded at the Calcutta Port.
The said goods were reshipped on the Vessel, S.S. Tiger River, which arrived at the Calcutta Port on 13th May, 1993.
4. It is the case of the petitioner Company that before the arrival of the goods at the Calcutta Port, the importer, the Respondent No. 10, informed the petitioner Company that they were not in a position to take delivery of the goods. Accordingly, on 11th May, 1993, the petitioner Company requested the Shipping Lines and its Agents in India not to discharge the goods at the Calcutta Port, but to send back the same to Singapore.
5. The Agents of the Shipping Lines, the Respondent No. 9 herein, informed the petitioner Company that the goods having been included in the Import Manifest filed with the Customs Authorities, it was no longer possible to return the consignment to Singapore without discharging the same at Calcutta Port and then re-exporting the same with the permission of the Customs authorities. Ultimately, the goods were discharged at the Port of Calcutta on 13th May, 1993, and is lying in the dock in the custody and under the control of the Customs authorities.
6. It appears further that by a letter dated 29th June, 1993, the petitioner requested the Collector of Customs, Calcutta, to grant it permission to re-export the consignment in question to Singapore. On the same date, the petitioner Company also requested the Respondent No. 8, the Agent of the Shipping Lines in India, to take up the matter with the Customs authorities and to arrange for re-shipment of the goods.
7. It is the case of the petitioner Company that the Collector of Customs did not take any steps in terms of the request made for grant of permission to re-export the consignment to Singapore, even though the title of the goods in question remained with the petitioner Company as the owner thereof, inasmuch as the Invoice, Packing Lists and Bills of Lading were not taken delivery of by the importer, namely, the Respondent No. 10 herein. It is the petitioner’s further case that after repeated visits to the Customs authorities, it was informed that without examination of the goods, no re-shipment would be allowed.
8. According to the petitioner, on 6th August, 1993, the goods were examined and found to be in order as per the Invoice. Thereafter, on 1st October, 1993, the Customs authorities instructed the Shipping Agent of the petitioner Company to give an undertaking in writing that the Respondent No. 10 (Importer) would not claim the Cargo and that the responsibility for any such claim by any one in respect of the said Cargo would be that of the petitioner Company.
9. It appears that on 12th October, 1993, the Shipping Agent of the petitioner company gave the undertaking as demanded, but even inspite of such undertaking being given, the petitioner Company was not allowed to re-export the goods in question. The petitioner Company, accordingly, made a further request to the Customs authorities that if it was not permitted to re-export the goods, it should be given necessary permission to sell the same to an Indian buyer.
10. According to the petitioner Company, inasmuch as, it did not receive any response from the Customs authorities, it filed the present writ application and by an order dated 21st February, 1994, the learned Single Judge allowed the petitioner Company to re-ship the goods to Singapore, upon its Calcutta-based Agent giving an undertaking to indemnify the respondents in the event of any loss or damage. Twelve weeks’ time was given to the parties to arrange for transhipment of the goods for the purpose of re-export. The Customs authorities were also directed to issue a detention certificate to the writ petitioner Company so that it was not made liable for any demurrage charges to be paid to the Calcutta Port Trust.
11. An appeal was preferred by the Customs authorities against the said order of the learned Single Judge and on 25th August, 1994, the Appeal Court gave liberty to the petitioner Company to re-export the goods in question, subject to payment of export duty, if any.
12. In terms of the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 21st February, 1994, the Customs atithorities issued a detention certificate in favour of the petitioner Company on 27th October, 1994, certifying that the goods in question had been detained by the Customs authorities from 9th August, 1993, to 7th October, 1994.
13. On 14th November, 1994, the copies of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge and the Appeal Court and the copy of the detention certificate were forwarded to the Calcutta Port Trust Authorities alongwith a covering letter dated 11th November, 1994, issued by the International Clearing and Shipping Agent, being the Calcutta-based Agent of the writ petitioner company.
14. Inasmuch as the Calcutta Port Trust had not been made a party either in the writ proceedings or in the appeal, it made an application in the month of December, 1994 before the learned Single Judge for leave to intervene and to be added as a party in the writ petition. A prayer was also made for stay of operation of the order dated 21st February, 1994, in so far as it related to non-payment of demurrage charges by the writ petitioner Company to the Calcutta Port Trust Authorities and for an order of injunction to restrain the writ petitioners and/or their agents from removing or obtaining release of the goods in question without payment of demurrage and other port charges to the Calcutta Port Trust, with effect from 13th May, 1993.
15. On 23rd December, 1994, the said application was taken up for consideration and a learned Judge of this Court, while allowing the prayer of the Calcutta Port Trust for being added as a party to the writ petition, directed that status quo be maintained in respect of the goods in question. Subsequently, on 11th January, 1995, the parties were directed to file their affidavits and the interim order passed on 23rd December, 1994, was directed to continue until further orders.
16. it may be pertinent to point out at this stage that the Scale of Rates relating to demurrage and other port charges was revised and the new Scale of Rates which was approved by the Central Government under Section 52 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, became effective from its date of publication in the Calcutta Gazette on 11th February, 1993.
17. On behalf of the writ petitioner Company it was urged that the Customs authorities had acted without authority in not allowing the goods to bere-shipped without insisting that the same be discharged at the Calcutta Port in terms of the Customs manifest and then be re-exported with the permission of the Customs authorities.
18. It was urged that in the writ petition permission had been granted to re-export the goods and in the appeal preferred by the Customs authorities the same was affirmed, but on payment of export charges, if any.
19. It was urged further that having regard to the detention certificate issued by the Customs authorities for the period from 19th August, 1993 to 7th October, 1994, the Port Trust Authorities could not claim any port charges from the petitioner Company for the said period or for the subsequent period during which the goods had been detained on account of the stand taken and the obstruction caused by the Calcutta Port Trust Authorities, for which the petitioner Company was not responsible.
20. It was then contended that if the Port Trust Authorities had any claim for demurrage or other port charges, it could recover the same from the Customs authorities who were responsible for the detention of the goods and in respect where of directions had been given to the Customs authorities to issue a Detention certificate to the petitioner Company.
21. In support of his submissions that the petitioner Company had no liability to pay demurrage and port charges for the detained goods since it was not responsible for its detention, Mr. Panja firstly referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Akbar Badruddin Jhuani v. Collector of Customs, , wherein while considering certain Tariff Items in Schedule I to the Import (Control) Order, 1955. The Hon’ble Supreme Court directed release of the goods which had been detained by the Customs authorities, without payment of detention charges and demurrage.
22. Reference was then made to a Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Union of India v. Sampat Raj Dugar, , where the question of liability to pay demurrage for goods wrongfully detained was directly at issue and it was held that the importer was entitled to a detention certificate for the goods in question as he had been wrongfully made liable to pay demurrage to the Bombay Port Trust, but he was liable to pay import duty for re-export of the goods.
22A. The order of the Division Bench was confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition filed by the Union of India. [Sampat Raj Dugar v. UOI -].
23. Mr. Panja also referred to two Bench decisions of the Delhi High Court and two Single Bench decisions of this Court, namely, (i) Sundeep Industries and Anr. v. Collector of Customs, New Delhi and Ors., [1991 (37) ECR 595, Delhi], (ii) C.L. Jain Woollen Mills and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. (Civil Writ Petition No. 1604 of 1994, Delhi) unreported, [Since ] (iii) Om Shankar Biyani v. Collector of Customs [] and (iv) Surabhi Leathers Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs []. Where views similar to those expressed in Sampat Raj Dugar’s case (supra) were expressed, and, in the last of the said four cases the Customs Department was, in fact, directed to pay demurrage charges in the event the Port Trust authorities declined to accept the wharfage Rent Exemption Certificate.
It was urged that a Special Leave Petition filed against the Bench decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sundeep Industries (supra) was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 26th March, 1993. It was urged that having regard to the consistent view taken by the Supreme Court, the Bombay and Delhi High Courts and this Court, the petitioner Company should be allowed to re-export the goods in question in terms of the order passed by the Appeal Court on 25th August, 1994, without payment of demurrage and other port charges.
24. It was lastly urged on behalf of the petitioner Company that the Ministry of Surface Transport, Government of India, had been considering the question of waiver/remission of demurrage charges in different cases? It was submitted that by a letter No. PR-14013/23/89-PG, dated 29th January, 1992, addressed to the Chairman of all major ports, the Government of India indicated the guidelines issued under Section 111 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, for remission of demurrage charges and directed that necessary action should be taken to adopt the same.
25. As pointed out by Mr. Panja, according to the aforesaid Circular, each case was to be treated on its own merits and only when the port was unable to deliver the goods on time. Certain exceptions were, however, set out in the said Circular where remission could be granted. Among the exceptions indicated, one ground for grant of remission is where clearance of goods is delayed owing to detention by the Customs authorities for Special examination and chemical/analytical test under Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962, and for bonafide operation of ITC facilities.
26. One of the other grounds for grant of remission of demurrage charges is where goods are confiscated and such confiscation order is set aside and the importer is allowed to clear the cargo.
27. It was then urged that the question of waiver/remission of demurrage charges was reviewed by the Central Government and by a further letter addressed to the Chairman of all Major Port Trusts on 1st August, 1995 the Central Government informed them that need was felt for bringing about uniformity in considering requests for waiver of demurrage charges. In reference to the earlier Circular of 29th January, 1992, it was stated that while under Paragraph 2(ii) of the guidelines enclosed with the earlier circular it had been mentioned that ordinarily remission could be given only upto 80% of the demurrage accrued for the period of detention, it had been decided to modify the said provisions as follows :-
“2(ii) In all the cases mentioned in Para 2(i) above or where the Board of Trustees have reasons to believe that the detention of goods is not due to the fault of the importer /consignee may consider such cases and give remission ordinarily upto 80% of the demurrage accrued or release the goods on payment of an amount equivalent to the CIF value of the goods, whichever amount is higher”.
28. It was contended that the Central Government and the Major Port Trust authorities were quite conscious of the problems created in consequence of detention of goods by the Customs authorities, when such detention was subsequently held to be illegal by the Courts or Tribunal. It was submitted that it was to cover such eventualities that the Central Government had to issue Circulars from time to time laying down guidelines for the Customs and port authorities to follow where remission or waiver of demurrage charges was prayed for.
29. Opposing the writ petition on behalf of the Calcutta Port Trust and its authorities, Mr. P.K. Das submitted that recently the Supreme Court had occasion to go into the question relating to the liability of an importer to pay demurrage charges in International Airports Authority of India v. Gulab Impex Enterprises Ltd., reported in 1995 (2) judgments Today at Page 453, and in Trustees of Port of Madras v. Nagavedu Lungi & Company, reported in 1995 (4) judgments Today at Page 243. Mr. Das urged that as per the majority decision in the first case it was held that an authority even if it is the custodian of the imported goods, because of the provisions of the Customs Act, would be entitled to charge demurrage for such goods in its custody and make the importer or consignee liable for the same even for periods during which he/it was unable to clear the goods from the Customs area, due to the fault on the part of the Customs authorities or of other authorities who might have issued detention certificates owning such fault.
30. Mr. Das submitted that the said view was reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Nagavedu Lungi & Company (supra).
31. Mr. Das then urged that under Section 59 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, the port Trust authorities had a lien over the detained goods for recovery of demurrage and other port charges, and such statutory right could not be rendered infructuous by the issuance of a detention certificate by the Customs authorities who had detained the goods.
32. In this connection, Mr. Das also referred to Paragraph 1142 of Volume 43 of Halsbury’s “Laws of England”, wherein it has, inter alia, been mentioned that as regards the general order of priority of liens, the right of a dock and harbour authority exercising powers under the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act, 1847, or under the similar provisions of its special Act, to detain and sell a ship in respect of dock and harbour dues or to take possession of and sell a wreck in respect of conservancy charges, overrides all maritime liens.
33. Mr. Das urged that an analogy may be drawn with regard to the provisions of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, in relation to the rights of the Calcutta Port Trust under Section 59 of the said Act.
34. Mr. Das then submitted that under Section 48 of the aforesaid Act, the Board of Trustees was empowered to frame a scale of Tates regarding demurrage and other port charges, and the petitioner Company was liable to pay such charges in keeping with the Scale of Rates framed by the Board and amended from time to time.
35. In support of his said submissions, Mr. Das referred to the decision of the Bombay High Court in Ashoke Arya v. M.V. Kapitan Mitros, , wherein the priority of claim of the Bombay Port Trust in respect of anchorage charges was upheld. It was observed that the lien given by statute to a dock or harbour authority cannot be extinguished by Court unless it be done with the authority’s express or implied consent, and the Bombay Port Trust was entitled to be paid the amount of its claim in priority to any other claim out of the sale proceeds of the vessel lying in Court.
36. As to the Circulars dated 24th January, 1992 and 1st August, 1995, Mr. Das urged that the same were in the nature of guidelines only and were directory in nature. However, if the petitioner Company was so advised, it could make an application to the Calcutta Port Trust in keeping with the said guidelines, which would be disposed of in accordance with law.
37. Referring to the various decisions cited on behalf of the petitioner Company, Mr. Das submitted that not only were the same distinguishable on facts from the present case, but having regard to the subsequent judgment in the case of International Airports Authority (supra), the question relating to the liability of the importer/consignee to pay even if the Customs authorities had unlawfully detained the goods, had been set at rest, and the petitioner company was, therefore, bound to pay the entire demurrage and port charges before it could re-export the goods, notwithstanding the detention certificate issued by the Customs authorities to cover the period from 19th August, 1993, to 7th October, 1994.
38. Mr. Das concluded his submissions by urging that since the order of 21st February, 1994, of the learned Single Judge was of an interim nature and since in the order of the Appeal Court dated 25th August, 1994, there was no reference to payment of demurrage and other port charges, at the stage of final hearing of the writ petition, the Court could always modify the interim orders in aid of the final decision, having particular regard to the fact that such orders had been made in the absence of the Calcutta Port Trust and its authorities who stand to be deprived of their statutory dues by virtue of the said orders.
39. The basic question raised in the writ petition as to the liability of the petitioner Company to pay demurrage and port charges on account of detention of the goods in question by the Customs authorities, was considered at an interim stage and leave was given to the petitioner Company to re-export the goods, but without payment of demurrage charges for which the Customs authorities were directed to issue a detention certificate.
40. The said order was not disturbed by the Appeal Court in the appeal preferred by the Customs authorities and the Appeal Court only added that the petitioner Company would be entitled to re-export the goods upon payment of export charges.
41. What is important is that the said orders had been made in the absence of the Calcutta Port Trust and its authorities who had not been made parties to the writ application or the Appeal, although, they stood to be adversely affected by the same on their subsequent application, the Board of Trustees of the Calcutta Port Trust were added as parties in the writ proceeding which is now being heard in their presence.
42. Admittedly, the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 21st February, 1994 and the subsequent order of the Appeal Court dated 25th August, 1994, were not given effect to prior to 23rd December, 1994, when another learned Single Judge directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the goods in question. Though, the aforesaid orders of the learned Single Judge and the Appeal Court were mandatory in nature, the same have not been implemented, and being interim in nature there can be no impediment in once against considering the question regarding the liability of the petitioner company to pay demurrage charges at the final hearing of the writ petition in the presence of the Board of Trustees of the Calcutta Port Trust, who were not heard when the said orders were passed. In fact, in similar circumstances, in Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Jai Hind Oil Mills Co. and Ors., , the Supreme Court reversed the order of the Bombay High Court since directions had been given to the Customs authorities to issue Detention Certificate in the absence of the Port authorities who had not been made party to the proceedings and to whom notice had not, therefore, been issued.
43. The initial lacuna has been rectified with the addition of the Board of Trustees of the Calcutta Port Trust as a party to the writ proceedings and all parties have been heard at the length on the question of the petitioner Company’s liability to pay demurrage charges for the period of detention by the Customs authorities and thereafter.
44. While the writ petitioner Company relied on various decisions wherein the consistent view taken was that the importer /consignee should not be made liable to pay demurrage charges on account of detention of the goods by the Customs authorities for no fault on his/its part, a slightly different view has been taken by the Supreme Court in the International Airports Authority case (supra).
45. At first glance, there appears to be a significant departure in the International Airports Authority case from the views expressed by the Supreme Court in Akbar Badruddin Jiwani and Sampat Raj Dugar’s case (supra), relied upon by Mr. Panja, but on a second glance it is clear that it is not so. The element of difference is with regard to fixation of liability for payment of demurrage and port charges on the basis of the Scale of Rates prepared by the Port Trust authorities under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963.
46. In the International Airports Authority case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to its earlier decision in (i) Trustees of the Port of Madras v. Aminchand Pyarelal and Ors., (ii) The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Indian Goods Supplying Co. and (iii) Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Jai Hind Oil Mills Company (supra).
47. In Aminchand Pyarelal’s case (supra) the Customs authorities detained the goods as the specifications in the import licence did not tally with the description of the imported goods. On a notice to show cause, the Customs authorities upon considering the explanation given, directed confiscation of the goods. In appeal, the Board of Trustees under the Madras Port Trust Act, 1905, reversed the order and the Customs authorities thereupon issued a certificate stating that the goods were detained by the Customs authorities for the period in question for examination under Sections 17(3) and 17(4) of the Customs Act, 1962, and on that basis the Port Trust authorities waived the demurrage for the period covered by the certificate and the goods were cleared on payment of a nominal sum.
48. Subsequently, it transpired that the Detention Certificate had been erroneously issued since the goods were detained in order to ascertain whether the Import Trade Control formalities had been complied with and not for the purposes of Sections 17(3) and 17(4) of the Customs Act, 1962.
49. In such circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was of the view that in cases where goods are detained by the Collector of Customs under Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962, or on account of Import Trade Control formalities or for compliance of formalities under the Drug’s Act, on certification by the Collector of Customs that such detention was not due to any fault or negligence of the importer, demurrage would either not be recoverable for the period during which the goods are detained for examination or be recoverable for the period of detention at the rate of 30% of the normal rate, for a period of 30 days and one working day, and, thereafter, at the full rate for detention beyond the said period.
50. In the case of the Indian Goods Supplying Co. (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court re-iterated its decision in Aminchand Pyarelal’s case regarding the right of the Port Trust Authorities to demurrage when the goods were detained on account of Import Control Trade formalities and the importer/consignee was not responsible for such detention and resultant delay. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that even though the delay in clearing the goods was not due to the negligence of the importer for which he should be held responsible, yet he cannot avoid the payment of demurrage as the rates imposed are under the authority of law, the validity of which cannot be questioned.
51. In the fai Mind Oil Mills case, the last of the three cases referred to in the International Airports Authority case (supra), the Supreme Court was of the view that before directing the Customs authorities to issue a Detention Certificate, the Court should have issued notice to the Port Trust authorities which was vitally interested in securing its own interests as regards the demurrage charges recoverable by it under law. The Supreme Court observed that this was necessary because on the production of the Detention Certificate issued by the Customs authorities, the Port Trust was under an obligation to permit the clearance of the goods without payment of full demurrage charges. If, ultimately, the party was found to be at fault, the Port Trust authorities would have lost their lien over the goods as envisaged in Section 59 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963.
52. The principle which emerges from the various decisions referred to above is that under Sections 48 and 49 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, the several Port Trust Authorities have been empowered to frame Scales of Rates for services performed and for use of their properties, and in keeping with the
Scale of Rates framed, an importer/consignee would be liable to pay demurrage charges on a graded scale if the goods are detained by the Customs authorities for the purposes of Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962, or on account of Import Trade Control formalities upon a Detention Certificate being issued by the Customs authorities to that effect for the relevant period.
53. From the facts, as disclosed, it appears that at the very outset, when the goods had arrived at the Calcutta Port, the Customs authorities were informed by the petitioner Company that the Respondent No. 10, namely, the importer was not in a position to take delivery of the goods and the same should not, therefore, be discharged at the Calcutta Port, but to send back the same to Singapore. Since, however, the goods had been declared in the Import Manifest filed with the Customs authorities, the goods had to be discharged with permission to re-export the same.
54. The petitioner Company was also informed that the goods could not be re-exported without being examined and the goods were, in fact, examined on 6th August, 1993, and were found to be as per the Invoice.
55. The Shipping Agent of the petitioner Company was asked by the Customs Authorities to give an undertaking in writing that the Respondent No. 10 would not claim the cargo and that the responsibility for any such claim would be that of the petitioner Company, and such undertaking was also duly given on 12th October, 1993.
56. It was only after the attempts of the petitioner Company to clear the goods had failed, despite meeting all the requirements of the Customs authorities, that it moved the instant writ petition and orders were passed thereon on 21st February, 1994, allowing the petitioner Company to reship the goods to Singapore and directing the Customs authorities to issue a Detention Certificate to the petitioner Company for the period of detention so that it was not made liable to pay demurrage charges to the Calcutta Port Trust for the said period.
57. As indicated hereinbefore, the said order was confirmed in appeal and the Appeal Court by its order of 25th August, 1994 gave liberty to the petitioner Company to re-export the goods, subject to payment of export duty, if any.
58. The aforesaid orders were not, however, implemented since by a subsequent order passed by a learned Single Judge on the application of the Calcutta Port Trust authorities on 23rd December, 1994, the parties were directed to maintain status quo, which order was subsequently extended until further orders on 11th January, 1995.
59. Inasmuch as, the Port Trust authorities cannot be denied their * statutory dues on account of demurrage and other Port Charges, what has to be seen in the facts of this case is whether the liability of the importer/consignee to pay such dues is to be shifted to the Customs authorities, since the petitioner Company was not to blame for detention of the goods in question, which fact has been resolved by the issuance of a Detention Certificate by the Customs authorities in favour of the petitioner Company to that effect.
60. A similar question came up for decision before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Padam Kumar Agarwalla v. The Additional Collector of Customs, Calcutta, and Ors. reported in AIR 1972 SC at Page 542. Quashing the order of confiscation passed by the Customs authorities, the Hon’ble Supreme Court indicated that there would have been no difficulty in directing release of the goods, had the same been in the custody of the Customs authorities, since the same were in the possession of the Port Commissioners who had a lien over the goods for rent and other charges, the Hon’ble Supreme Court went on to observe that someone would have to pay the port charges before the goods could be removed. The Hon’ble Supreme^ourt was of the view that since the importer was not to blame for the delay in removal of the goods which had been illegally detained by the Customs authorities, it would be only fair and just for the Customs authorities, who were responsible for the situation, to bear the burden.
61. In Akbar Badruddin Jizvani’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed release of the goods which had been detained by the Customs authorities without payment of detention charges and demurrage.
62. Apart from the above, it is evident from the letter dated 29th January, 1992, written on behalf of the Government of India to the Chairman of all major ports, that the Government was also aware of the problem and issued guidelines under Section 111 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, for remission of demurrage charges in certain cases and directed that appropriate steps be taken to adopt the same.
63. Keeping in mind the various decisions cited on behalf of the parties, particularly the decision in the International Airports Authority case and in the case of Padam Kumar Agarwalla (supra) and the guidelines issued by the Central Government under Section 111 of the Major Port Trust Act, 1963, I am of the view that, although, the importer/consignee cannot be absolved of his liability to pay the demurrage and port charges, actual burden of payment of such dues should be shifted to the person or authority responsible for the delay in lifting of the goods.
64. In the instant case, such delay has admittedly been caused by the Customs authorities.
65. Accordingly, I dispose of this application by directing the Customs Authorities to pay the demurrage and other dues of the Calcutta Port Trust in respect of the goods in question, within fifteen days from date and, thereafter, permit the petitioner Company to re-export the goods on payment of export duty, if any. The authorities of the Calcutta Port Trust are directed to make over possession of the goods to the petitioner Company immediately upon receipt of payment of its dues from the Customs authorities to enable the petitioner Company to re-export the same in terms of the order.
66. The application for vacating the interim order filed on behalf of the authorities of the Calcutta Port Trust is also disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
67. There will be no order as to costs.
68. All parties to act on a signed copy of the operative part of this judgment on the usual undertaking.