The actual burden of payment of demurrage and port charges should be shifted to the person or authority responsible for the delay in lifting of the goods.

( 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 sa