Importer Liable for Demurrage Charges Despite Valid Release

The court held that the importer is liable to pay demurrage/godown rent and container charges even if goods were validly released after detention. It emphasized the contractual obligations between importers and carriers, stating that customs authorities cannot issue detention certificates to waive demurrage charges. Relying on precedents, the court dismissed the petitions, ruling that it cannot direct customs authorities to waive such charges as they are governed by contractual and statutory rights of carriers.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Liability of the importer to pay demurrage/godown rent and container charges.
2. Validity and consequences of detention certificates issued by customs authorities.
3. The role of contractual obligations between importers and carriers.
4. The impact of judicial precedents on the liability for demurrage charges.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Liability of the Importer to Pay Demurrage/Godown Rent and Container Charges:
The primary issue in both writ petitions revolves around the liability of the importer to pay demurrage/godown rent and container charges even when the import of goods detained was ultimately found to be valid. The court examined the facts of each case, where the goods were detained and later released after adjudication. In the case of M/s. S.K. Metal & Co., the goods were detained due to a mis-declaration but later released after mutilation as ordered by CEGAT. Similarly, M/s. Modern Overseas faced detention due to alleged undervaluation, which was later overturned by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals).

2. Validity and Consequences of Detention Certificates Issued by Customs Authorities:
The court referred to several precedents, notably the Supreme Court's decision in International Airport Authority of India v. Grand Slam International, which held that there was no power in the Collector of Customs to issue a Detention Certificate directing custodians not to collect custody charges. This principle was reaffirmed in Shipping Corporation of India Limited v. C.L. Jain Woollen Mills, where the court emphasized that the customs authorities could not compel carriers or warehouse owners to waive demurrage charges through detention certificates.

3. The Role of Contractual Obligations Between Importers and Carriers:
The court highlighted that the relationship between importers and carriers is governed by the terms and conditions of their contracts, including bills of lading. The carriers, such as CWC and SCI, have a statutory right to claim demurrage charges based on their regulations and the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which provides for a bailee's lien. The court noted that there is no provision in the Customs Act that allows customs authorities to interfere with these contractual obligations.

4. The Impact of Judicial Precedents on the Liability for Demurrage Charges:
The court analyzed various judicial precedents to outline the legal position regarding demurrage charges. It reiterated the principles from International Airport Authority of India v. Grand Slam International and Shipping Corporation of India Limited v. C.L. Jain Woollen Mills, which establish that customs authorities cannot direct the waiver of demurrage charges. The court also discussed cases like Union of India v. Sanjeev Woollen Mills, which was decided on exceptional facts and does not constitute a general precedent for waiving demurrage charges.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that it could not issue directions to customs authorities to waive demurrage charges or container charges. It emphasized that such charges are governed by contractual obligations and statutory rights of the carriers. The writ petitions were dismissed, and the court did not grant the main prayers, including the waiver of demurrage charges, due to the established legal principles and the absence of any provision in the Customs Act to support such a waiver.

---