Demurrage recovery and pleaded liability limits shape writ relief for imported goods in port custody.

A port trust may recover demurrage for goods retained in its custody, and a writ court will not accept a bare claim that only warehousing rent is payable without convincing proof of compliance with the statutory warehousing scheme. Relief directing clearance of imported goods without demurrage or other port charges is not available where no detention certificate or equivalent lawful basis is shown, especially after substantial delay by the importer. Liability cannot be shifted to customs authorities unless the pleadings and prayers specifically raise that issue and supply a factual foundation. The governing principle is that writ relief cannot rest on disputed facts or on a liability theory not pleaded.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner could avoid payment of demurrage demanded by the port trust on the ground that the imported goods were allegedly warehoused and only warehousing rent was payable; (ii) whether relief could be granted directing clearance of the goods without demurrage and other port charges; (iii) whether any liability could be fastened on the customs authorities in the absence of specific pleadings and prayers to that effect.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner could avoid payment of demurrage demanded by the port trust on the ground that the imported goods were allegedly warehoused and only warehousing rent was payable?

Analysis: The claim that the goods were warehoused from 11 October 1982 was disputed by the port trust, which maintained that the consignments remained in the transit area of the port. The Court noted that the Customs Act, 1962 contains a complete statutory scheme governing warehousing, including entry for warehousing, permission for deposit, warehousing bond, period of warehousing, and rent and warehouse charges. In the absence of convincing documentary material showing compliance with that scheme, the assertion of warehousing could not be accepted in writ jurisdiction. The question whether the goods were warehoused or remained in the port area was treated as a disputed question of fact.

Conclusion: The petitioner failed to establish that only warehousing rent was payable, and the demand for demurrage could not be quashed on that basis.

Issue (ii): Whether relief could be granted directing clearance of the goods without demurrage and other port charges?

Analysis: The Court applied the principle that a statutory port authority is entitled to recover demurrage for goods in its custody, even if the importer could not clear the goods because of fault attributable to customs authorities, unless a detention certificate or equivalent relief is shown in accordance with law. The petitioner had not obtained such a certificate, and the challenge was directed mainly against the port trust's demand. The Court also found that the petitioner had allowed substantial delays, including long periods during which no effective steps were taken to secure release of the goods.

Conclusion: No direction for clearance of the goods without demurrage, rent, penalty, interest or other charges could be granted.

Issue (iii): Whether any liability could be fastened on the customs authorities in the absence of specific pleadings and prayers to that effect?

Analysis: The petition contained no specific prayer seeking to make the customs authorities liable for the demurrage demanded by the port trust, and the necessary factual foundation was also absent. The Court reiterated that relief cannot be granted on a basis outside the pleadings. The authorities relied on by the petitioner were distinguished because, in those cases, the pleadings and prayers specifically raised the question of customs liability. On the facts of the present case, such relief could not be granted.

Conclusion: No relief could be issued against the customs authorities.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed in its entirety, as the petitioner could not dislodge the port trust's demand, could not secure clearance of the goods without charges, and could not shift liability to the customs authorities on the pleadings as framed.

Ratio Decidendi: A port trust may recover demurrage for goods in its custody under the statutory regime, and writ relief cannot be granted on disputed factual claims or on a liability theory that is not founded in the pleadings and prayers.

---