Customs detention and demurrage: port dues subsist, but the burden may shift to the detaining authority.

Where imported goods were detained by customs, the port trust's statutory right to levy demurrage and other port charges under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 remained intact, and the importer or consignee was not absolved of liability. However, on the facts, the Court held that the financial burden of those dues could be shifted to the customs authorities whose actions caused the detention, particularly where a detention certificate had been issued. The goods were therefore permitted to be re-exported after the customs authorities paid the port dues, with export duty payable if applicable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the importer or consignee remained liable to pay demurrage and other port charges for goods detained by the customs authorities; (ii) whether, in the facts of the case, the burden of such charges could be shifted to the customs authorities responsible for the delay, while permitting re-export of the goods.

Issue (i): Whether the importer or consignee remained liable to pay demurrage and other port charges for goods detained by the customs authorities.

Analysis: The relevant statutory scheme under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 empowers port authorities to levy charges in accordance with the notified scale of rates and preserves their lien for recovery of such dues. Earlier authorities were considered, including decisions recognising that detention by customs does not by itself extinguish the port authority's right to charge demurrage, particularly where the charges arise under law and the port authority is not at fault.

Conclusion: The importer or consignee was not absolved of liability to pay demurrage and port charges.

Issue (ii): Whether, in the facts of the case, the burden of such charges could be shifted to the customs authorities responsible for the delay, while permitting re-export of the goods.

Analysis: The goods had been detained because of the customs authorities' insistence on examination and related procedures, and a detention certificate had been issued for the relevant period. The Court reconciled the competing lines of authority by holding that, although the port's statutory dues could not be denied, the actual burden may be shifted to the authority responsible for the delay. Since the delay was attributable to the customs authorities, equitable adjustment was warranted in the circumstances of the case.

Conclusion: The customs authorities were directed to pay the demurrage and other dues to the port trust, after which the petitioner was entitled to re-export the goods on payment of export duty, if any.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded in part by securing release for re-export, but the immediate financial burden of the port dues was placed on the customs authorities responsible for the detention.

Ratio Decidendi: Where imported goods are detained due to customs action, the port authority's statutory entitlement to demurrage subsists, but the burden of those dues may, on the facts, be shifted to the authority responsible for the detention, while the goods are allowed to be re-exported.

---