Continuity of subordinate legislation and demurrage liability upheld despite repeal and customs detention.

Section 24 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 was applied to hold that the 1993 Regulations continued in force despite repeal of the earlier enabling statute, and could still support AAI's lien and levy of demurrage until fresh regulations were made. The Court also held that demurrage remained payable by the consignee or exporter and could not be shifted to the Customs Department merely because the cargo was detained or because of delay in issuing a detention certificate. A separate grievance against Customs could be pursued independently, but the petitioner was not relieved of liability.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the 1993 Regulations continued to operate after repeal of the earlier enabling statute and could justify AAI's lien and levy of demurrage; (ii) Whether the petitioner could avoid payment of demurrage or shift the liability to the Customs Department on account of detention of the cargo and alleged delay in issuance of the detention certificate.

Issue (i): Whether the 1993 Regulations continued to operate after repeal of the earlier enabling statute and could justify AAI's lien and levy of demurrage.

Analysis: The enabling regulations were not treated as having lapsed merely because the parent enactment was repealed. By applying Section 24 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the regulations were held to continue in force and to be read as having been made under the corresponding provisions of the later statute until fresh regulations were framed. The Court treated subordinate legislation as retaining its character notwithstanding the repeal of the parent Act.

Conclusion: The 1993 Regulations remained operative and AAI's lien and levy of demurrage were upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner could avoid payment of demurrage or shift the liability to the Customs Department on account of detention of the cargo and alleged delay in issuance of the detention certificate.

Analysis: The Court held that demurrage was payable to AAI by the consignee or exporter and that the liability did not shift to the Customs Department merely because the cargo was detained or because of delay in administrative processing. The petitioner had not shown any basis to be exempted from payment, and any grievance against Customs could only be pursued separately in accordance with law. The Court also declined to hold that failure to communicate the exact amount extinguished the liability, though a request for waiver under applicable rules could be considered by AAI on merits.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not relieved of the obligation to pay demurrage and the liability was not transferred to the Customs Department.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed on the merits, the demurrage liability was affirmed against the petitioner, and the requested reliefs were declined.

Ratio Decidendi: Repeal of a parent statute does not extinguish valid subordinate regulations where Section 24 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 applies, and demurrage payable to a bailee cannot be shifted to another authority merely because the cargo was detained by customs.

---