Court orders Customs Commissioner to issue detention certificate to waive demurrage charges under Customs Act

The Court granted the writ petition, directing the Customs Commissioner to issue a detention certificate waiving demurrage charges for the period between confiscation and release of goods as per the Customs Act. The petitioner's entitlement to the certificate was upheld, emphasizing the respondent's responsibility to issue it promptly. The Court's decision aligned with legal provisions and case precedents, relieving the petitioner from demurrage charges and instructing the respondent to issue the certificate within eight weeks without imposing costs.

---

---

Issues: Petition seeking mandamus for detention certificate waiving demurrage charges; Delay in implementing CESTAT order; Entitlement to detention certificate; Liability for demurrage charges.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to direct the Commissioner of Customs to issue a detention certificate waiving demurrage charges post-confiscation until release of goods. The cargo was detained for not meeting export norms, leading to a series of legal proceedings culminating in CESTAT setting aside the order and allowing the appeal.

2. The petitioner's grievance arose from the lack of response from the respondent post the CESTAT order, despite requests for a detention certificate. The petitioner contended that as per Customs Act, no demurrage charges are payable for the period between confiscation and release of goods if directed by customs authorities. The Apex Court's interpretation of Section 45 of the Customs Act supports the petitioner's claim for waiving demurrage charges.

3. Citing a similar case precedent from Calcutta High Court, it was argued that the delay in clearing goods was due to the non-issuance of the detention certificate. The judgment highlighted that responsible parties for such delays should bear demurrage and port charges, emphasizing the need for the respondent to issue the detention certificate to waive demurrage charges for the petitioner.

4. The Court, after considering the legal provisions and precedents, held that the petitioner was entitled to the detention certificate. The respondent was directed to issue the certificate, specifying the period of detention of goods, and to consider the petitioner's pending representation. The judgment emphasized that since the CESTAT had set aside the previous orders and no further appeal was filed, the petitioner should not be liable to pay demurrage charges for the detention period.

5. In conclusion, the writ petition was allowed, and the respondent was directed to issue the detention certificate within eight weeks, waiving demurrage charges for the period of detention. The judgment did not impose any costs on the parties involved.

---