Bill of Lading date governs import timing; detained consignments were releasable and demurrage protection applied.

The Foreign Trade Policy treated the Bill of Lading as the relevant date for reckoning import, so the Bill of Entry date was not decisive. On the facts stated, the dhall consignments were not covered by the import embargo, while peas consignments covered by Bills of Lading during 01.10.2018 to 31.12.2018 were liable to be released subject to conditions because the restrictive notification was under stay when shipped. Detained goods were also entitled to protection from demurrage under the cargo regulations, so demurrage had to be waived.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, for reckoning the date of import, the relevant date is the date of Bill of Lading or the date of Bill of Entry; (ii) whether the imported consignments of dhalls were subject to an embargo on import; (iii) whether the imported consignments of peas covered by Bills of Lading during 01.10.2018 to 31.12.2018 were liable to be released; and (iv) whether demurrage charges were liable to be waived for the detained consignments.

Issue (i): Whether, for reckoning the date of import, the relevant date is the date of Bill of Lading or the date of Bill of Entry.

Analysis: The Foreign Trade Policy specifically treated the Bill of Lading as the relevant date for reckoning import. The Court held that the policy operated as a self-contained code for that purpose and, therefore, the reference to the Customs Act for adopting the Bill of Entry date was not determinative for this issue.

Conclusion: The relevant date for reckoning import was the date of Bill of Lading, not the date of Bill of Entry.

Issue (ii): Whether the imported consignments of dhalls were subject to an embargo on import.

Analysis: The notification governing dhalls did not stipulate the same time-bound restriction as the peas notifications relied upon in the batch. On the admitted facts, that restriction was not attracted to the dhall consignments in the present writ petitions.

Conclusion: There was no embargo on the import of the dhall consignments in the present cases.

Issue (iii): Whether the imported consignments of peas covered by Bills of Lading during 01.10.2018 to 31.12.2018 were liable to be released.

Analysis: The stay operating against the relevant notification was in force when the consignments were imported. Applying the Bill of Lading date as the relevant date, the consignments falling within 01.10.2018 to 31.12.2018 were treated as not hit by the later restriction. The Court also proceeded on the admitted position that the matter was governed by the earlier protective order and that the goods were liable for release on conditions.

Conclusion: The peas consignments covered by Bills of Lading during the stated period were liable to be released, subject to the prescribed conditions.

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

Analysis: Rule 6(l) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 prohibited levy of rent or demurrage on goods seized or detained by customs officers, subject to other law in force. The detained consignments therefore attracted the regulatory protection against demurrage.

Conclusion: Demurrage charges were liable to be waived.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded and the consignments were directed to be released on fulfillment of the stated conditions, with demurrage waived and liberty reserved to the authorities to proceed in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Foreign Trade Policy treats the Bill of Lading as the relevant date for import and a restrictive notification is under stay on the date of shipment, consignments shipped within the protected period cannot be denied clearance on the basis of a later restriction, and detained goods are entitled to demurrage protection under the applicable customs cargo regulations.

---