Bill of Lading date governs import restrictions; detained consignments were releasable and demurrage had to be waived.

Under the Foreign Trade Policy, the relevant date for testing import restrictions was the Bill of Lading date, not the Bill of Entry date, because Regulation 9.11 treated shipment as the controlling reference point for import-related rights. The Court noted that later restrictive notifications could not retrospectively defeat consignments already shipped when the protective stay was in force, so the peas and dhalls were not liable to be denied clearance on that basis and were ordered to be released on the stated conditions. It also held that demurrage had to be waived because the goods had been detained by customs, bringing Regulation 6(1)(l) of the 2009 Cargo Handling Regulations into operation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the relevant date for determining the import of the consignments was the date of Bill of Lading or the date of Bill of Entry; (ii) Whether the imported peas and dhalls were hit by the restrictive notifications so as to justify detention of the consignments; (iii) Whether demurrage charges were liable to be waived on the detained goods.

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

Analysis: Regulation 9.11 of the Foreign Trade Policy treated the date of Bill of Lading as the relevant date for reckoning import. The customs objection based on the date of Bill of Entry under section 15 of the Customs Act did not govern the import restriction issue, since the policy itself operated as the controlling code for that purpose. The prior decision relied on the same principle that importers acquire a vested or accrued right when shipment has crystallised before the restrictive measure takes effect.

Conclusion: The relevant date was the date of Bill of Lading.

Issue (ii): Whether the imported peas and dhalls were hit by the restrictive notifications so as to justify detention of the consignments.

Analysis: The notifications operated prospectively and the stay granted by the Court was in force when the consignments were shipped. On the admitted facts, the peas covered by Bills of Lading within the stated period and the dhalls imported under the relevant restriction period could not be treated as barred merely because of the later notifications. The consignments had therefore to be considered in light of the existing stay and the principle that a policy change cannot take away a vested or accrued right retrospectively.

Conclusion: The consignments were not liable to be denied clearance on that basis and were directed to be released on compliance with the stated conditions.

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

Analysis: Regulation 6(1)(l) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 prohibited charging rent or demurrage on goods seized or detained by customs officers, subject to any other law in force. Since the consignments had been detained by the customs authorities, the statutory condition for waiver was satisfied.

Conclusion: Demurrage charges were directed to be waived.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were allowed in substance by directing release of the consignments on fulfilment of the specified duty and security conditions and by granting waiver of demurrage, while preserving the authorities' liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: For import restriction disputes under the foreign trade regime, the operative date is the Bill of Lading where the policy so provides, and a later restrictive notification operating prospectively cannot defeat a vested or accrued right in respect of consignments already shipped.

---