Supreme Court Rules No Demurrage Charges on Seized Goods

The Supreme Court held that no demurrage charges were payable on the seized goods as per Customs regulations. It directed that the goods, now stale and rotten, be auctioned by respondent No. 4 with the proceeds retained, as they were of no use to the appellant. The court disposed of the appeal, considering the changed circumstances and lack of utility of the goods to the appellant.

---

---

Issues:
1. Seizure of goods by Customs Authorities and demand for demurrage charges by Customs Cargo Service Provider.
2. High Court's order restricting relief of non-payment of charges till a specific date.
3. Excessive demurrage charges claimed by Customs Cargo Service Provider.
4. Delay in High Court judgment affecting clearance of goods.
5. Stale and rotten condition of goods leading to no utility for the appellant.

Analysis:
1. The appellant imported Carbon Black Feed Stock (CBFS) which was detained by Customs authorities due to appearing hazardous. The appellant sought provisional clearance, but Customs demanded a clearance certificate. After obtaining clearance from Ministry of Environment and Forest, Customs allowed clearance on 12-1-2015. The Customs Cargo Service Provider demanded demurrage charges, leading to a writ petition challenging the action. High Court found the seizure improper and ruled no demurrage charges were payable on seized goods as per Customs regulations.

2. The High Court granted relief to the appellant till 15-1-2015, based on the date of assessment and clearance of goods by Customs Authorities. The appellant challenged this part of the order, arguing against the restriction on non-payment of charges. The respondents accepted the judgment, acknowledging the wrongful detention of goods by Customs Authorities.

3. Respondent No. 4 claimed excessive demurrage charges of Rs. 7.67 crores on goods valued at Rs. 7 crores. The appellant contested the charges, stating they were unreasonable and not payable. The High Court vindicated the appellant's stand but delivered the judgment on 14-10-2015, after a prolonged period from 15-1-2015.

4. The delay in the High Court judgment from 15-1-2015 to 14-10-2015 impacted the appellant's ability to clear the goods. In the absence of an interim order allowing clearance, the appellant couldn't proceed, leading to a need for a revised decision on the payment of charges till the date of the High Court judgment.

5. Subsequent developments revealed the goods were now stale and rotten, rendering them useless to the appellant. In light of this, the Supreme Court directed that no demurrage charges or rent were payable on the goods to respondent No. 4. Instead, respondent No. 4 was permitted to auction the goods and retain the proceeds. The appeal was thus disposed of, considering the changed circumstances and the lack of utility of the goods to the appellant.

---