Demurrage liability turns on whether detention was plainly wrongful, not on a later change in the Revenue's interpretation.

Revenue is not liable for demurrage on delayed clearance of imported goods where detention was based on a plausible interpretation of the applicable notification and no mala fide or extraneous purpose is shown. A later clarification or change in the Revenue's view does not, by itself, make the initial refusal wrongful or create demurrage liability. Liability arises only where the original action is palpably wrong or wholly unacceptable. On these facts, the detention was treated as justified at the time it was taken, and demurrage could not be fastened merely because the position was subsequently corrected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Revenue was liable for demurrage charges on the detention and delayed clearance of imported goods when the refusal to clear was based on a possible interpretation of the applicable notification and was later corrected by a subsequent clarification.

Analysis: The Revenue's stand was found to have been taken on a plausible understanding of the notification then in force, and no mala fide intent or extraneous consideration could be attributed to the detention of the goods. The later clarification and change of position did not, by themselves, render the initial action wrongful so as to fasten liability for demurrage. Liability for demurrage cannot arise merely because the Revenue later altered its view, unless the original action is palpably wrong or wholly unacceptable.

Conclusion: The Revenue was not liable to pay the demurrage charges.

---