Court rules demurrage charges not refundable for goods seized pre-Regulation, importer liable post-adjudication.

The Court dismissed the petition seeking a refund of demurrage charges on seized goods, citing that Regulation 6(1) did not apply retroactively to goods seized before its notification. Relying on a Division Bench judgment, the Court emphasized the importer's liability for demurrage charges post-adjudication and the distinction between pre and post-confiscation payment obligations. Referring to Supreme Court precedents, the Court highlighted the Regulations' broader scope in determining the service provider's relationship with Revenue, leading to the dismissal of the petition due to lack of merit.

---

---

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Regulation 6(1) of Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulations, 2009 regarding demurrage charges on seized goods.
2. Applicability of the Regulation to goods seized before its notification.
3. Refund of demurrage charges paid by the petitioner.
4. Impact of previous judgments on the present case.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash orders and refund demurrage charges on goods seized by customs authorities. The petitioner relied on Regulation 6(1) to argue against paying demurrage on seized goods. The counsel contended that respondents operating under the regulation cannot levy demurrage and must refund the amount paid during goods release.

2. The Union of India's counsel argued that the Regulation applies to the case, requiring respondents to refund demurrage charges. However, respondents' counsel pointed out that the goods were seized before the Regulation's notification, citing a Division Bench judgment that favored the respondents.

3. The Court noted that the Regulation prohibiting demurrage on seized goods came into effect after the goods were seized, hence not applicable. Citing the Division Bench judgment, the Court found no grounds to grant relief to the petitioner. The judgment highlighted the distinction between payment obligations pre and post-confiscation, emphasizing the importer's liability for demurrage charges post-adjudication.

4. Referring to precedents from the Supreme Court, the Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the wider scope of the Regulations in determining the service provider's relationship with the Revenue, rather than services availed by the importer. The Court's decision was based on the lack of merit in the petition, leading to its dismissal.

---