Court upholds waiver of demurrage charges citing customs regulations, goods exempt from charges during investigation.

The court upheld the impugned order waiving demurrage and detention charges, citing Regulation 6(l) of Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations 2009 and Notification No.26/2009-Cus. (N.T.). The judge found that the goods were seized for investigation and adjudication, exempting them from rent or demurrage charges. The decision emphasized the protection afforded by the regulations in such circumstances, dismissing the Revenue's appeal and affirming the first appellate authority's ruling.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge to impugned order regarding waiver of demurrage and detention charges.
2. Interpretation of Regulation 6(l) of Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations 2009.
3. Compliance with Section 49 of the Customs Act, 1962.
4. Applicability of case laws in similar situations.

Analysis:

1. The Revenue challenged the impugned order seeking waiver of demurrage and detention charges based on the delay in passing the order and the non-shift of goods to a bonded warehouse. The issue was whether the waiver was justified. The first appellate authority had noted the delay in passing the order and held that the appellants should not be forced to pay charges due to the delay caused by the department.

2. The Revenue argued that under Section 49 of the Customs Act, 1962, the goods should have been warehoused in a bonded warehouse due to prolonged adjudication, which the respondents failed to do. They cited various case laws to support their position. However, the respondents relied on Regulation 6(l) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations 2009, which states that no rent or demurrage is chargeable on goods seized or detained by the proper officer. The respondents contended that the impugned order was correct as per this regulation.

3. The judge considered the submissions from both sides and analyzed Regulation 6(l) in detail. It was found that the goods in question had been seized and were needed for investigation and adjudication, falling under the purview of the regulation. The judge disagreed with the Revenue's argument regarding shifting the goods to a bonded warehouse, noting the lack of space as intimated to the department by the respondents. The judge distinguished the case laws cited by both sides based on the timing of the goods' detention and the introduction of the 2009 regulations.

4. The judge concluded that the impugned order waiving demurrage and detention charges was correct as per Notification No.26/2009-Cus. (N.T.) and Regulation 6(l). The judge upheld the first appellate authority's decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The judgment highlighted the importance of not charging rent or demurrage on goods seized or detained by the proper officer, emphasizing the protection provided by the relevant regulations in such cases.

---