Bill of Lading date governs import timing, detained cargo escaped later restrictions, and demurrage on customs-held goods was waived.

The Foreign Trade Policy treated the Bill of Lading date as the relevant date for reckoning import, so the Customs Act valuation date did not control when import was deemed to occur for the restriction issue. On the admitted facts, the import restrictions did not justify continued detention because the relevant notifications were under interim stay when the consignments were imported, and a prospective policy change could not defeat crystallised transactions. Where cargo was detained by customs, the governing cargo-handling regulation barred rent or demurrage on seized, detained, or confiscated goods, so demurrage was required to be waived and the consignments released subject to compliance conditions.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the relevant date for determining import was the date of the Bill of Lading or the Bill of Entry; (ii) whether the consignments of dhalls and peas were hit by the import restrictions in force during the relevant period; (iii) whether demurrage charges were liable to be waived on the detained consignments.

Issue (i): Whether the relevant date for determining import was the date of the Bill of Lading or the Bill of Entry.

Analysis: The Foreign Trade Policy specifically treated the Bill of Lading date as the relevant date for reckoning import. In that framework, the Customs Act provision fixing the date for levy and valuation did not govern the issue of when import was to be treated as having occurred for the purpose of the trade restriction.

Conclusion: The relevant date for the import of the peas was the date of the Bill of Lading.

Issue (ii): Whether the consignments of dhalls and peas were hit by the import restrictions in force during the relevant period.

Analysis: The detention orders were examined against the admitted fact that the restrictive notifications were under interim stay when the consignments were imported. The decision also proceeded on the principle that a policy change or prohibition operating prospectively cannot defeat transactions that had already crystallised. On the admitted facts, the dhall consignments were not covered by the temporal restriction relied upon, and the pea consignments covered by the relevant Bill of Lading period were entitled to release despite the notifications.

Conclusion: The import restrictions did not justify continued detention of the consignments in question.

Issue (iii): Whether demurrage charges were liable to be waived on the detained consignments.

Analysis: The cargo was detained by customs authorities, and the cargo-handling regulation barred levy of rent or demurrage on goods seized, detained, or confiscated by customs officers, subject to other law in force.

Conclusion: Demurrage charges were required to be waived.

Final Conclusion: The consignments were directed to be released on compliance with the stated monetary conditions, and demurrage was waived, while the authorities retained liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Foreign Trade Policy treats the Bill of Lading as the relevant date and a restrictive notification is under stay at the time of import, the importer's crystallised rights cannot be defeated by later enforcement of the restriction, and detained cargo cannot be burdened with demurrage where the governing regulation prohibits such charges.

---