http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: M/S.RISHI TRADE CENTRE ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS & ORS.ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       16/09/1996

BENCH: B.P.JEEVAN REDDY, K.S. PARIPOORNAN

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: O R D E R      Delay  condoned   in   S.L.P.(C)   No.19051   of   1996 (cc.No.2966/96).      Leave granted in both the appeals. Civil appeal  No. 12036  of 1996  @ S.L.P.  (C) No. 19051 of 1996 (CC. No. 29660) (Narayani Trading Concern (p) Ltd.)      This appeal  is preferred  against the  judgment  of  a Division Bench  of the  Calcutta High  Court dismissing  the appeal   preferred    by   the    respondent-collector    of customs,calcutta port & others.      The appellant  says that  he is engaged in the business of importing  of various articles from foreign countries for consumption in  Nepal and  that he  holds necessary Licences and permits  in that  behalf from the Government of Nepal.He imported white poppy seeds from Pakistan. They were imported by sea.  The goods arrived at Calcutta port, from where they were to  be taken  to be  Nepal along he route prescribed in the Indo-Nepal  Treaty of  trade, Transit and Clearance. The goods were  detained by  the customs authorities at calcutta port. Since  the goods  were  not  released  for  quit  some time,the appellant  (and other  similarly placed  importers) approached the  Calcutta High Court by way of writ petitions for issuance  of an  appropriate writ, order or direction to the customs  authorities to  release  the  said  goods.  The learned single  judge allowed  the  writ  petitions  by  his judgment and  order dated  May 19,  1995. The  learned judge directed  the   respondents  "to   forthwith   release   the consignment of  poppy seeds   forming  the subject matter of this writ  application,and to allow the petitioner concerned to transit  the same  to Nepal in accordance with and in the manner provided  for in  the provisions  of  the  treaty  of transit and  Treaty of trade between the Government of India and the Government of Nepal and the improcedure forming part thereof on  the  route  mentioned  in  the  Customs  Transit Declaration (Import),  being Annexure  ’A’ to writ petition, in the manner indicated below."      The  learned   single   judge   also   appointed,rather curiously, an  advocate of  the High  Court as a receiver to ensure against  pilferage of goods enroute and also to guard against diversion of good for use in India.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

    Against the  judgment of  the learned  single judge, he respondents field  appeal which  have been  dismissed by the Division Bench. Following that judgment, the application for intervention filed  by the appellant in civil appeal arising from S.L.P.(C) No.10287 of 1996 was also dismissed.      In  this   appeal,  it   is  submitted  by  sri  Joseph Vellapally, learned  counsel for  the  appellant,  that  the action of the customs authorities in retaining the innocuous goods like  poppy seeds  for an  inordinately long  time  at Calcutta port  is clearly  a mala  fide action. He submitted that on  account of  the long period of detention, the goods have deteriorated completely and have become valueless. He , therefore submits  that the  respondents must be directed to compensate the  appellant in  full for  the loss  and damage suffered by the appellant on account of the unlawful seizure and detention of the appellant’s goods. Learned counsel also attacks the  findings recorded  by the  two  learned  judges (constituting the  Division Bench)  to the  effect that  the action taken  by the customs authorities was not a mala fide one.      In our  opinion, however, the appellant is not entitled to claim  such a  relief in  this appeal  for the  following reasons: the  writ  petition  filed  by  the  appellant  was allowed by  the learned  single Judge  merely directing  the release of the goods. So for as the claim  for reimbursement of demurrage  and port  charges are  concerned, the  learned Judge merely  observed that  the matter  is left to the good sense of  the customs  authorities to take appropriate steps to avoid  further litigation.  In his  order ,  there is  no reference to any claim of compensation for loss or damage to goods. No  appeal was preferred by the appellant against the judgment of  the learned single  Judge. Only the respondents had preferred  appeals, which  have been  dismissed  by  the Division Bench  as stated  above. In the circumstances,it is not open to the appellant to claim in this appeal not merely the reimbursement  and demurrage  and port  charges but also compensation for the alleged loss and damage to his goods.      Secondly, there is no proof of extent of damage or loss to the goods.      The appellant  is, therefore, not entitled to claim any compensation or  damages in  this appeal.  it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.      C.A.No.12035 of 1996 @ S.L.P.(0) No.10287 of 1996 (M/s.Rishi Trade Centre)      For the  reasons given  hereinabove, this  appeal to is dismissed. No costs.