Demurrage liability on detained imported goods survives customs dispute; importer cannot demand release or value without payment.

Liability for demurrage and custody charges on imported goods was held to survive even where customs detention was later disputed, because detention did not extinguish the custodian's right to recover storage charges from the owner. The customs circular and the 2009 Regulations were treated as governing the relationship between the custodian and the Revenue, and did not create a right in the importer to insist on free storage or to shift liability away from the owner when the goods had not vested in the State. As the importer had not accepted the provisional release offered, mandamus for return of the goods or payment of their value without discharge of charges was denied.

---

---

Issues: Whether the importer could seek a mandamus for return of the goods or payment of their value without first discharging demurrage and custody charges, and whether the customs circular and regulations prevented the custodian from recovering such charges from the importer.

Analysis: The claim was examined against the settled principle that customs detention, even if ultimately found unjustified, does not by itself extinguish the liability to pay storage or demurrage charges to the custodian of the imported goods. The circular governing custodians prevented them from charging demurrage on detained goods and required payment by the Customs Department only where ownership vested in the Government after confiscation, while the 2009 Regulations similarly regulated the relationship between the service provider and the Revenue. Those provisions did not create a right in favour of the importer to insist on free storage or to shift demurrage liability away from the owner of the goods when the goods were not vested in the State. The Court also noted that the petitioner had not availed the provisional release offered at the relevant time, and therefore had taken the risk of continued storage charges.

Conclusion: The importer remained liable for demurrage and custody charges, and no mandamus could be issued directing release of the goods or payment of their value without such payment.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed because the customs authorities were not obliged to bear the storage burden in the circumstances, and the petitioner was not entitled to the relief sought.

Ratio Decidendi: Liability for demurrage on imported goods in custody is not extinguished merely because customs seizure or detention is later disputed or found improper, and the custodian-facing exemption provisions do not confer a corresponding right on the importer to avoid such charges.

---