C.W.P No. 11862 of 2006 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 11862 of 2006 Date of decision : September 05, 2008 M/S Adhunik Alloys Pvt Ltd ...... Petitioner through Mr.Rajesh Garg, Advocate v. Union of India and others ...... Respondents through Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik,Addl.A.G Haryana for respondents No.1 to 3 and 5. Mr.Kamal Sehgal, Advocate for respondent No.4. Mr.G.S.Anand, Advocate for respondent No.7. CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J This petition was filed for a direction to release the seized containers of the petitioner, seized vide detention memo. dated 5.9.2003. Case set out in the petition is that goods were detained under the directions of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and inspite of C.W.P No. 11862 of 2006 ::2:: representatives of the petitioner offering to pay the custom duty as per schedule, the goods were not released. Heavy demurrage charges were incurred on account of unlawful detention. Show cause notice was issued on 11.2.2005, but adjudication was delayed and finally the adjudicating authority decided the matter against the petitioner, against which an appeal was preferred, which was allowed after holding that confession of Mr. Vinod Garg was recorded in illegal detention. The appeal of the department is pending against the said order before the Tribunal. This Court directed the goods to be released vide order dated March 3, 2008, leaving the question of demurrage charges to be decided. On this question we find that there is variance in the stand of the Custom Authorities and that of the Authorities of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. It is a case of the said respondents that they have been constantly advising the petitioner to get the containers released, after paying the differential duty. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that their appeal having been allowed, it is clear that no differential duty was exigible on the imported goods and, thus, the demand for paying the differential duty was unjustified. Counsel for the respondents have argued that against the Order- in-Appeal, the revenue has filed a second appeal before the Tribunal and, thus, at this stage it cannot be said that no differential duty was exigible on the imported goods. In the circumstances, it is not possible for this Court to give a finding regarding the respective liability of the parties in respect of the demurrage charges. However, since primary liability to pay demurrage C.W.P No. 11862 of 2006 ::3:: charges is of the petitioner and since under order of this Court goods have been released depriving respondent No.7 of the lien on goods for recovery of charges, we hold that respondent No.7 is entitled to recover the demurrage charges from the petitioner in the first instance. Learned counsel for respondent No.7 has made a statement that 75% charges are waived and 25% are to be recovered. The petitioner will be at liberty to recover the amount by establishing that it has been saddled with the liability for the fault of the Custom Authorities as per parameters laid down in law. We leave this question open. The petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) JUDGE ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE September 05, 2008 'kk'