The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of good faith in the exercise of statutory duties by the Custom Authorities and the principle that mere issuance of a detention certificate does not confer a right on the importer to claim detention charges/demurrage from the Custom Authorities.

PRATIBHA RANI, J.

1. The appellant before us is Union of India impugning the judgment and decree dated March 22, 2002 whereby an ex-parte decree for a sum of Rs 46,31,929/- with costs, pendent lite and future interest @ 18% p.a. was passed in favour of respondent herein i.e. M/s Navshakti Industries P. Ltd.

2. At the outset, we may note that the judgment and decree being ex-parte, appellant had impugned the judgment on its legality, referring the facts pleaded and proved on affidavit by way of ex-parte evidence by the respondent.

3. The case of the respondent (plaintiff in CS(OS) No.2667/1998) is that it is a company incorporated under The Companies Act, 1956 and was importer, exporter and trader of various kinds of newsprints and printing papers from various countries. The respondent used to place orders and foreign suppliers sent the goods which reached the International Containers Deport (hereinafter referred to as ICD), Tughlakabad. The goods used to be got released by the respondent from there on completing the formalities.

4. The facts giving rise to cause of action for filing the suit pertained to the import of newsprint/printing paper from various countries during the period July, 1997 to December, 1997. On getting the information, respondent filed the bill of entry for release of the goods alongwith complete documents in the office of AC (Customs). The items imported were allowed under Open General Licence but the goods were not released by the Custom on the pretext that previous test reports of such goods were not available.

5. The plaintiff was ready to give the test bonds against each bill of entry along with undertaking to pay the custom duty so that it was not burdened with demurrage/detention charges. Despite that, the goods were detailed for want of test reports from the Laboratory.

6. The plaintiff has given the details of each bill of entry along with date of arrival of container, name of Shipper, weight and other particulars in para 6 of the plaint and extracted on pages 2 to 8 of the impugned judgment, so we do not consider it necessary to reproduce. The fact of the matter is that 80% of the goods were released to the importer immediately and remaining 20% detained awaiting the test report.

7. The respondent requested the appellants for release of the containers containing goods and respondent was ready to give the Test Bonds against each bill of entry along with an Undertaking to pay the custom duty, if found payable. Thereafter respondent filed all the bills of entries and Test Bonds. Despite the Test Bonds having been filed by the respondent, the goods were not released and detained for months.

8. Ultimately on testing, as the consignment/goods imported by respondent were found to be as per the bills of entries, no duty was payable under the Customs Act. The detention certificate was issued to the respondent by Custom Authorities but request made to Container Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as CCI) and the Shipping Company to remit the demurrage/detention charges was declined on the ground that they were not concerned with the acts of omission and commission of the appellants.

9. The respondent was constrained to pay 33,16,218/- to CCI and Shipping Company. Apart from that, due to fluctuation in dollar rates, respondent further suffered loss of 4,58,608/- and the above amount has been claimed along with interest @ 18% p.a. on the ground that the appellant wrongfully withheld the goods imported thereby making the respondent liable to pay heavy amount towards detention/demurrage charges/ground rent without any fault on its part.

10. As mentioned above, respondent failed to appear despite service and proceeded ex-parte.

11. The ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit is mere reproduction of the averments made in the plaint. Apart from resolution Ex.P1 authorising Mr. K.C. Goyal to sign and verify the plaint and institute the suit, various communications and notice under Sec.80 CPC along w