VINA ONE STEEL MANUFACTURING CORPORATION v. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS HOUSE, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN; TENNY JOSE LIMITED; OMEGA SHIPPING AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED; EVERGREEN SHIPPING AGENCY (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED; GATEWAY DISTRIPARKS(KERALA) LIMITED

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL** **MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 28TH MAGHA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.3489 OF 2020(I)** ## **PETITIONER:** **VINA ONE STEEL MANUFACTURING CORPORATION HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT HIGHWAY 1A, VIO LA HAMLET,LONG HIEP COMMUNE,BEN LUC DISTRICT,LONG AN PROVINCE,VIETNAM- REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI.AMAL NATH NAIK,AGED 31 YEARS,S/O. (LATE) KAMALNATH NAIK,RESIDING AT KAITHAYIL HOUSE,KOVILAKATHUM KADAVU,PALLIPORT.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683515,KERALA.** **BY ADVS. SRI.ASWIN GOPAKUMAR SRI.ANWIN GOPAKUMAR SRI.RENOY VINCENT SRI.NIRANJAN SUDHIR SMT.FEMY ANN JOHNSON** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CUSTOM HOUSE,INDIRA GANDHI ROAD, WILLINGDON ISLAND,COCHIN-682009.** - **2 TENNY JOSE LIMITED, HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT 3RD FLOOR,AVENUE TOWER,R.NO.8/D1/D2, BISHOP PALACE ROAD,EAST FORT,OPP.MARTHOMAM CHURCH,THRISSUR-680005, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.** - **3 OMEGA SHIPPING AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED, HAVING ITS KOCHI BRANCH OFFICE AT PAUL ABRAO BUILDING,SUBRAMANIAN ROAD,WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN-682003,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.** - **4 EVERGREEN SHIPPING AGENCY(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, HAVING ITS COCHIN BRANCH OFFICE AT DOOR NO.CC 61/1770 AND 1771,BAB TOWERS,2ND FLOOR,MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD,COCHIN-682015,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.** - **5 GATEWAY DISTRIPARKS(KERALA)LIMITED, HAVING ITS CONTAINER FREIGHT STATION AT MAIN ROAD-NH-** **WP(C).No.3489 OF 2020(I)** **2** **47 C,OPP.INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TRANSHIPMENT TERMINAL,VALLARPADAM-KOCHI-682504,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR (SR.) BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH BY ADV. SRI.J.RAMKUMAR BY ADV. SRI.MADHU RADHAKRISHNAN BY ADV. SRI.M.D.JOSEPH BY ADV. SRI.V.J.MATHEW (SR.) BY ADV. SRI.VIPIN P.VARGHESE BY ADV. SRI.ADARSH MATHEW BY ADV. SMT.ATHIRA ANTONY A. BY ADV. SHRI.S.K.KASHYAP BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS (SR.) BY ADV. SRI.RONY JOSE BY ADV. SMT.SUZANNE KURIAN BY ADV.SRI.SREELAL WARRIER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.3489 OF 2020(I)** **3** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner, a company registered in Vietnam represented by Indian power of attorney holder Sri.Amarnath Naik, has approached this Court claiming following reliefs: (I) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order and commanding Respondent No.1 to allow the petitioner or persons claiming under it to destuff the cargo from the containers covered by Bill of Lading Nos.235900805914 dated 30.08.2019, 0399X30482 dated 06.09.2019 and 0399A22251 dated 15.09.2019, move it to a more economical storage and sell the cargo to an interested buyer or dispose of it or otherwise deal with the same as the owner of the cargo; and (ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the Respondent No.1 to allow the petitioner or persons claiming under it to make and prefer necessary filings etc- either electronically in the Customs Automated System of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (ICEGATE accessible at www.icegate.gov.in) or manually in relation to the import goods covered by Bill of Lading Nos.235900805914 dated 30.08.2019, 399X30482 dated 06.09.2019 and 0399A22251 dated 15.09.2019; and (iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order and commanding Respondent No.1 to direct Respondents 3 to 5 refrain and desist from demanding, collecting or in any way recovering or appropriating' container detention charges' and 'ground rent' or any other charges or costs of that nature from the **WP(C).No.3489 OF 2020(I)** **4** Petitioner or persons claiming under it; and (iv) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order and commanding Respondent No.1 to direct Respondents 3 to 5 to demand, collect, recover or appropriate 'container detention charges' and 'ground rent' or any other charges or costs of that nature from the 2[nd] Respondent; and (v) to grant such other and incidental reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and necessary in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case; and vii) to allow this writ petition (civil with costs to the petitioner. 2. The preface of the controversy arises out of a contract entered between the petitioner and respondent No.2 for sale of steel pipes 1500 metric tonnes for a total sale consideration of 1,065,000 US dollars. The copy of the sale contract has been annexed as Ext.P1. The sale contract contains certain conditions with regard to the trade term, shipment, payment and resolution of disputes through arbitration. The conditions of the contract included 15% of the contract amount through telegraphic transfer within three days after the contract date and the remaining will be paid by DP at sight. It also included 21 days of free time for the importer ie. the 2[nd] respondent to lift the goods as and when it reaches **WP(C).No.3489 OF 2020(I)** **5** Kochi Port. Trade term included also a Cost Insurance Freight (CIF), which every exporter/consignor before sending it on a shipment to the consignee seeks indemnification from a respective insurance company. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the consignments reached the Kochin Port in the month of September 2019. The 2[nd] respondent consignee intention to lift the goods at the price fixed became dishonest through a communication Ext.P38 dated 25.09.2019, wherein over and above 21 days of free time, sought another 14 days of extension to lift the goods with a further prayer of cash discount of 150 US dollars per metric tonnes only on account of extreme delay, but before that, had submitted the bill of entries on 19.09.2019, 23.09.2019 and 08.10.2019 (Exts.P41 to P43). Respondents 3 and 4 are the shipping agencies and respondent 5 is the container freight station. 4. Despite having submitted the bill of entry, the goods have not been lifted entailing into an intended demand of container freight station and as well as demurrage charges at the end of the 3, 4 and 5[th] respondents. The expression **WP(C).No.3489 OF 2020(I)** **6** 'importer' used Section 22 and defines under sub clause 26 of Section 2 of the Customs Act has undergone an amendment with effect from 31.03.2017 by including any owner or beneficial owner or any person holding himself to be an importer thus for all intends and purposes respondent No. 2 cannot be granted as an importer. 5. A very piquant situation in the instant case as the reason where the respondent No.2 despite having submitted bill of entries has not come forward for claiming the title of the goods or made the payments resulting into a impasse and dispute. No doubt the petitioner would have arrived to claim damages in terms of money arising out of the contract by taking the aid of the conditions imposed therein, but the predicament at the moment is writ large. It is in this background of the matter the reliefs, as aforementioned, have been sought seeking the indulgence of this Court. 5. In this context, reliance has been laid in the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in _**Rasiklal Kantilal &**_ **Co** _**. V. Board of Trustee of Port of Bamby and Ors** [2017_ _(11) SCC 1]._ By referring to the aforementioned judgment, it **WP(C).No.3489 OF 2020(I)** **7** has been submitted that the cash against documents would construe vesting of the title to the goods in favour of the petitioner. In other words until and unless respondent No.2 the consignee do not lift the goods and make the payment the title would vest with the petitioner. Though the controversy in the afore cited judgment was pertaining to the remission of Port demurrage charges, over and above the main claims, the interim relief has been sought for issuance of an appropriate direction directing the 1[st] respondent to permit the petitioner or the persons claiming under it destuff the cargo from the containers covered by the bill of ladings dated 30.08.2019 and 15.09.2019, to a more economical storage. The further permission is to sell the cargo to an interested buyer and dispose of to prevent the further container retention charges and as well as the container tariff. 6. Mr.Sreelal.N.Warrier, learned counsel representing the 1[st] respondent submits that the writ petition is bereft of any cause of action as none of the situations as projected in the writ petition calling upon the petitioner to pay the cargo retention charges or container tariff has been raised, nor the **WP(C).No.3489 OF 2020(I)** **8** conditions of insurance of the freight purported to have been executed between the petitioner and the insurance company, have been placed on record. The procedure as envisaged under Section 46 of the customs Act is self explanatory and do not require any interpretation for the reason that there would have been a force in the submission of Mr.Aswin Gopakumar had the 2[nd] respondent not submitted the bill of entries. Even if the situation as attempted to made in the petition has been taken care of the various provisions of the Act including Section 48 permitting the custom Department to sell the goods in open auction to recover the detention and another charges in accordance with law and urges this Court for dismissal of this writ petition. 7. Mr.Manu Radhakrishanan, the learned counsel appearing for the 3[rd] respondent submits that his clients had let out the container consisting of the consignment of 1500 metric tones of steel and it would be bound by the contract between his clients and the petitioner. The submission of the statement of account of the tariff of the containers cannot be the actual demand it is only for facilitation of the petitioner, **WP(C).No.3489 OF 2020(I)** **9** nothing beyond. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the paper book and I am of the view that there is no force and merit in the submission of Mr. Aswin Gopakumar on account of the following reason: - I. This court has been prevented of the contract if any arrived at between the petitioner and the insurance company as the normal transaction business as well as ascertainable from the terms and conditions of the contract (Ext.P1), the goods are always against the insurance of the freight ie. Cost Insurance Freight. - II. It is still a mystery whether the petitioner has launched claim with the insurance company and claiming the amount due or not, I would not be further commenting on this as it may not have devastating effect on the purported claim of the petitioner vis-a vis the insurance company. - III. In view of the situation as explained above, the remedy for the petitioner to recover the cost if permissible in law in the absence of any insurance ie. **WP(C).No.3489 OF 2020(I)** **10** in the absence of insurance cover can be resorted to by invoking the arbitration clause. - IV. No doubt importer after the amendment as referred to above, would include the owner the title of the goods in such circumstances cannot prevent the exporter or the consignor to lose the claim by submitting the bill of entries, but the same cannot be replaced as sought to be done as it has already been submitted by the respondent No.2. Role of mischief at the hands of respondent No.2 as tried to be attempted and projected in this Court cannot be ruled out, but again it would be a matter of debate and interpretation of any claim or counter claim if an appropriate arbitration proceedings or other proceedings are initiated. - V. So long there is no demand by the custom department against the petitioner giving cause to invoke to claim the relief as aforementioned, but this Court cannot remain unmindful of the fact that a vigilant title holder of the goods cannot be permitted to remain as a mute spectator in espousing the grievance. **WP(C).No.3489 OF 2020(I)** **11** In the judgment cited (supra) referring to the exporter/consignor to be a title holder of the goods coupled with the information that the judgments cited supra have been doubted and referred to a larger bench by a reference in _**The**_ _**Chairman, Board of Trustees, Cocin Port Trust v. Arebees Star Maritime Agencies Pvt. Ltd. And Ors.**_ [2018 (4) SCC 592], the relevant portion of which read thus: “14. Analysing the above judgments, the following position emerges: (I) The decisions in **Rowther-I, Rowther-II, Sriyanesh Knitters, Forbes-II** and **Rasiklal** do not seem to follow a consistent line about whom the Port Trust has to fasten the liability for payment of its charges; (ii) The Constitution Bench judgment in **Rowther-I** holds that when Port Trust takes charge of the goods from the ship-owner, the ship-owner is the bailor and the Port Trust is the bailee. While the Bench of two Judges in **Sriyanesh Knitters** holds that there comes into existence the relationship of bailor and bailee between the consignee and the Port Trust, the decision in **Forbes-II** disagrees with this view of **Sriyanesh Knitters** . **Rasiklal** opines that enquiry into such relationship is irrelevant in determining the right of a Port Trust to recover its dues; (iii) While the decision in **Sriyanesh Knitters** was based on the interpretation of the term "owner" Under Section 2(o) of the MPT Act, the judgment in **Forbes-II** and **Rasikla** l do not find **WP(C).No.3489 OF 2020(I)** **12** the question of interpretation of the term owner " to be relevant; (iv) While **Forbes-II** relies upon the Constitution Bench decision in **Rowther-I** to come to its conclusions, **Rasiklal** does not find **Rowther-I** to be an authority for the proposition that until the title in goods is passed to the consignee, the liability to pay various charges payable to a Port Trust, for its services in respect of goods, falls exclusively on the steamer agent; (v) In **Rowther-II** , it was held that once the goods are handed over to the Port Trust by the steamer and the steamer agents have duly endorsed the bill of lading or issued the delivery order, their obligation to deliver the goods personally to the owner or the endorsee comes to an end. The decision in **Rasiklal,** which has been delivered after the reference of Forbes-I was disposed of, takes a contrary view that in cases where the consignee does not come to take delivery of goods, the position of law laid down by **Rowther-II** would result in a situation that the Port Trust would Incur expenses without any legal right to recover such amount from the consignor, with whom there was no contractual obligation; and (vi) The Bench of two Judges in **Rasiklal** opined that it agrees with the conclusions recorded in **Rowther-II** and **Forbes-II** that a Port Trust could recover the rates due, either from the steamer agent or the consignee. However, the holding in **Rowther-II** finds only the consignee to be liable. 15. Taking note of the above inconsistencies in the judgments which have been delivered after the pronouncement by the Constitution **WP(C).No.3489 OF 2020(I)** **13** Bench in **Rowther-I** , we are inclined to the view that the following issues need to be resolved by a larger Bench: a) Whether in the interpretation of the provision of Section 2(0) of the MPT Act, the question of title of goods, and the point of time at which title passes to the consignee is relevant to determine the liability of the consignee or steamer agent in respect of charges to be paid to the Port Trust; b) Whether a consignor or a steamer agent is absolved of the responsibility to pay charges due to a Port Trust, for its services in respect of goods which are not cleared by the consignee, once the Bill of lading is endorsed or the delivery order is issued; C) Whether a steamer agent can be made liable for payment of storage charges/demurrage, etc. in respect of goods which are not cleared by the consignee, where the steamer agent has not issued a delivery order; if so, to what extent; d) What are the principles which determine whether a Port Trust is entitled to recover its dues, from the steamer agent or the consignee; and e) While the Port Trust does have certain statutory obligations with regard to the goods entrusted to it, whether there is any obligation, either statutory or contractual, that obliges the Port Trust to de-stuff every container that is entrusted to it and return the empty containers to the shipping agent. The larger Bench may deal with any additional issues relevant to the **WP(C).No.3489 OF 2020(I)** **14** context, as it deems necessary. 16. We request the Registry to place the papers before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India for such administrative directions as may be considered appropriate.” Thus it is yet to be decided whether the definition of the importer has to be strictly interpreted in the manner as attempted to be put across at this stage when the matter has been referred to a larger bench. This court cannot change the terms and conditions of the contract and supplement the same as has been attempted to be done. For the reason aforementioned this writ petition is dismissed. **Sd/-** nak **AMIT RAWAL JUDGE** **WP(C).No.3489 OF 2020(I)** **15** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALES CONTRACT DATED 04.03.2019** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE SWIFT MESSAGE RELATING TO PAYMENT MADE BY RESPONDENT NO.2** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 19.07.2019 SENT TO THE PETITIONER BY AN OFFICER OF RESPONDENT N0.2 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 10.08.2019 SENT BY AN OFFICER OF RESPONDENT NO.2 TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOTS DEPICTING MESSAGES EXCHANGED BETWEEN OFFICERS OF PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT NO.2 IN WHATSAPP DURING THE PERIOD 10.08.2019 TO 22.08.2019. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF BILL OF LADING NO.235900805914 DATED 30.08.2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 SHIPPING COMPANY EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMERCIAL INVOICE DATED 28.08.2019 RELATING TO THE 1ST LOT OF SHIPMENT. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF PACKING LIST DATED 28.08.2019 RELATING TO THE 1ST LOT OF SHIPMENT. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE MILL TEST CERTIFICATE DATED 29.08.2019 RELATING TO THE 1ST LOT OF SHIPMENT EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE CARGO INSURANEC POLICY DATED 29.08.2019 RELATING TO** **WP(C).No.3489 OF 2020(I)** **16** **THE 1ST LOT OF SHIPMENT.** - **EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE CONTAINER WISE STUFFING LIST DATED 28.08.2019 RELATING TO THE 1ST LOT OF SHIPMENT.** - **EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF ORIGIN DATED 09.09.2019 RELATING TO THE 1ST LOT OF SHIPMENT.** - **EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE BILL OF LADING DATED 06.09.2019 RELATING TO THE 2ND LOT OF SHIPMENT** - **EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMERCIAL INVOICE DATED 03.9.2019 RELATING TO THE 2ND LOT OF SHIPMENT** - **EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE PACKING LIST DATED 03.9.2019 RELATING TO THE 2ND LOT OF SHIPMENT.** - **EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE MILL TEST CERTIFICATE DATED 04.9.2019 RELATING TO THE 2ND LOT OF SHIPMENT.** - **EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE CARGO INSURANCE POLICY DATED 05.09.2O19 RELATING TO THE 2ND LOT OF SHIPMENT** - **EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE CONTAINER WISE STUFFING LIST DATED 03.09.2019 RELATING TO THE 2ND LOT OF SHIPMENT.** - **EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF ORIGIN DATED 09.09.2019 RELATING TO THE 2ND LOT OF SHIPMENT.** - **EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE BILL OF LADING DATED 15.9.2010 RELATING TO THE 3RD LOT OF SHIPMENT** - **EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMERCIAL INVOICE AND PACKING LIST DATED 12.09.2019** **WP(C).No.3489 OF 2020(I)** **17** **RELATING TO THE 3RD LOT OF SHIPMENT** - **EXHIBIT P22 TRUE COPY OF THE MILL TEST CERTIFICATE DATED 14.09.2019,RELATING TO THE 3RD LOT OF SHIPMENT** - **EXHIBIT P23 TRUE COPY OF THE CARGO INSURANCE POLICY DATED 13.09.2019 RELATING TO THE 3RD LOT OF SHIPMENT.** - **EXHIBIT P24 TRUE COPY OF THE CONTAINER WISE STUFFING LIST DATED 12.09.2019 RELATING TO THE 3RD LOT OF SHIPMENT.** - **EXHIBIT P25 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF ORIGIN DATD 18.06.2019 RELATING TO THE 3RD LOT OF SHIPMENT.** - **EXHIBIT P26 TRUE COPY OF THE 'EXPORT COLLECTION SCHEDULE DATED 12.09.2019 WITH RESPECT TO THE 1ST LOT OF SHIPMENT.** - **EXHIBIT P27 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR HANDLING EXPORT LC/COLLECTION DOCUMENTS'DATED 30.08.2019 WITH RESPECT TO THE 1ST LOT OF SHIPMENT** - **EXHIBIT P28 TRUE COPY OF THE BILL OF EXCHANGE DATED 30.08.2019 WITH RESPECT TO THE 1ST LOT OF SHIPMENT** - **EXHIBIT P29 TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOT OF THE WEBPAGE ON THE ONLINE PORTAL OF THE COURIER COMPANY WITH RESPECT TO THE 1ST LOT OF SHIPMENT** - **EXHIBIT P30 TRUE COPY OF THE 'EXPORT COLLECTION SCHEDULE' DATED 12.09.2019 WITH RESPECT TO THE 2ND LOT OF SHIPMENT** - **EXHIBIT P31 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR HANDLING EXPORT LC/COLLECTION DOCUMENTS DATED 06.09.2019 WITH RESPECT TO THE 2ND LOT OF SHIPMENT.** **WP(C).No.3489 OF 2020(I)** **18** **EXHIBIT P32 TRUE COPY OF THE BILL OF EXCHANGE DATED 06.09.2019 RELATING TO THE 2ND LOT OF SHIPMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE 2ND LOT OF SHIPMENT** - **EXHIBIT P33 TRUE COPY OF THE 'EXPORT COLLECTION SCHEDULE',DATED 23.09.2019 WITH RESPECT TO THE 3RD LOT SHIPMENT.** - **EXHIBIT P34 TRUE COPY OF THE 'APPLICATION FOR HANDLING EXPORT LC/COLLECTION DOCUMENTS/DATED 15.09.20149WITH RESPECT TO THE 3RD LOT OF SHIPMENT** - **EXHIBIT P35 TRUE COPY OF THE BILL OF EXCHANGE DATED 15.09.2019 RELATING TO THE 3RD LOT OF SHIPMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE 3RD LOT OF SHIPMENT** - **EXHIBIT P36 TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOT OF THE WEBPAGE ON THE ONLINE PORTAL OF THE COURIER COMPANY WITH RESPECT TO THE 2ND LOT** - **EXHIBIT P37 TRUE COPIES OF THE SCREENSHOTS OF THE WEBPAGES OF THE ONLINE PORTAL OF THE COURIER COMPANY WITH RESPECT TO THE 3RD LOT OF SHIPMENT** - **EXHIBIT P38 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 25.09.2019 SENT TO THE PETITIONER BY A PRINCIPAL OFFICER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P39 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 27.09.2019 SENT BY THE PETITIONER IN REPLY TO EXT.P38** - **EXHIBIT P40 TRUE COPIES OF THE EMAILS EXCHANGED BETWEEN THE PETITONER AND THE RESPONDENTS NO.2** - **EXHIBIT P41 TRUE COPY OF THE BILL OF ENTRY NO.BE** **WP(C).No.3489 OF 2020(I)** **19** **NO.4959235 DATED 19.09.2019** **EXHIBIT P42** **TRUE COPY OF THE BILL OF ENTRY NO.BE NO.500646 DATED 23.09.2019** **EXHIBIT P43** **TRUE COPY OF THE BILL OF ENTRY NO.BE NO.BE NO.52083433 DATED 08.10.2019.** **EXHIBIT P44** **TRUE COPY OF THE WORKSHEET RELATING TO THE CONTAINER DETENTION CHARGES LEVIED BY RESPONDENT NOI.3 TILL 20.12.2019** **EXHIBIT P45** **TRUE COPY OF THE WORKSHEET RELATING TO THE CONTAINER DETENTION CHARGES LEVIED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 TILL 20.12.2019** **EXHIBIT P46** **TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20.12.2019 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P47** **TRUE COPY OF THE POLICE COMPLAINT DATED 21.12.2019 LODGED BY THE PETITIONER.** //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE