Customs service provider barred from imposing demurrage charges during detention. Petitioner responsible after clearance.

The court held that the customs cargo service provider was not allowed to impose demurrage charges for the period of detention by customs authorities. The petitioner could clear the goods without demurrage until 15th January 2015, after which any demurrage charges were the petitioner's responsibility. The writ petition was resolved with each party bearing its own costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Detention and clearance of imported goods.
2. Levy of demurrage charges by the customs cargo service provider.
3. Authority of customs authorities and custodian under the Customs Act and related regulations.
4. Provisional assessment and storage of goods under Section 49 of the Customs Act.
5. Responsibility for demurrage charges during the period of detention.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Detention and Clearance of Imported Goods:
The petitioner company imported Carbon Black Feed Stock (CBFC) and the goods were detained by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Noida, pending a test to determine if they were hazardous. Despite requests for provisional clearance, the goods were not released until the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MOEF) clarified that the goods were not hazardous. The customs authorities finally cleared the goods on 15th January 2015.

2. Levy of Demurrage Charges by the Customs Cargo Service Provider:
The petitioner was charged demurrage by the customs cargo service provider, respondent no.4, despite the goods being detained by customs authorities. The petitioner argued that demurrage charges were not payable as the goods were detained for customs examination. The court found that respondent no.4 was not entitled to charge demurrage for the period during which the goods were detained by customs authorities.

3. Authority of Customs Authorities and Custodian Under the Customs Act and Related Regulations:
The judgment elaborated on the powers of customs authorities under various sections of the Customs Act, including Sections 2(11), 8, 33, 34, 45, and 49. It was emphasized that the customs authorities have full control over imported goods until they are cleared. Section 45(2) of the Act and Regulation 6(1)(l) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009, were particularly relevant, as they restrict the custodian from charging demurrage on goods detained by customs.

4. Provisional Assessment and Storage of Goods Under Section 49 of the Customs Act:
The petitioner's requests for provisional assessment and storage under Section 49 were not acted upon by the customs authorities. The court noted that the failure to pass orders on these applications amounted to detention of the goods. The customs authorities' inaction was deemed unjustified and arbitrary, especially given the petitioner's specific application for shifting the goods to a warehouse.

5. Responsibility for Demurrage Charges During the Period of Detention:
The court concluded that the custodian, respondent no.4, could not charge demurrage for the period during which the goods were detained by customs authorities. The petitioner was entitled to clear the goods without paying demurrage charges up to 15th January 2015, the date when the goods were finally cleared by customs. Any demurrage charges post this date were to be borne by the petitioner.

Conclusion:
The court ruled that the customs cargo service provider was not entitled to levy demurrage charges for the period during which the goods were detained by customs authorities. The petitioner could clear the goods without paying demurrage charges up to 15th January 2015, subject to payment of other charges applicable after this date. The writ petition was disposed of with each party bearing its own costs.

---