Bill of lading governs import date, and later restrictions cannot defeat crystallised import rights; detained goods released with demurrage waived.

For foreign trade purposes, the relevant date of import was the date of the bill of lading under Regulation 9.11 of the Foreign Trade Policy, not the date of the bill of entry under the Customs Act. Later import restrictions operated prospectively and could not defeat rights that had crystallised under the earlier regime; as the bills of lading fell within the protected period and the stay of notifications was operative, the detained consignments were ordered released subject to duty payment where leviable and bank guarantee. Demurrage on the detained goods was also required to be waived under the cargo handling regulations.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the relevant date for reckoning the import of the consignments was the date of the bill of lading or the bill of entry; (ii) whether the detained consignments of peas and dhalls were liable to release despite the import restrictions and stay orders operating at the relevant time; (iii) whether demurrage charges were liable to be waived on the detained goods.

Issue (i): Whether the relevant date for reckoning the import of the consignments was the date of the bill of lading or the bill of entry.

Analysis: Regulation 9.11 of the Foreign Trade Policy treated the date of bill of lading as the relevant date for import. The policy was treated as a complete code for this purpose, and the reference to Section 15 of the Customs Act, 1962, which fixes the date for duty purposes by reference to the bill of entry, was held not to govern the reckoning of import date under the foreign trade regime.

Conclusion: The relevant date was the date of the bill of lading, not the date of the bill of entry.

Issue (ii): Whether the detained consignments of peas and dhalls were liable to release despite the import restrictions and stay orders operating at the relevant time.

Analysis: The Court applied the principle that a restriction or prohibition introduced by a later notification operates prospectively and cannot divest a vested or accrued right arising from imports already crystallised under the earlier regime. On the admitted facts, the relevant bills of lading fell within the protected period, and the operative stay of the notifications was in force when the consignments were imported. The consignments were therefore not liable to detention merely on the basis of the impugned restrictions.

Conclusion: The consignments were directed to be released, subject to the stated conditions of duty payment where leviable and bank guarantee.

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

Analysis: Rule 6(l) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 prohibits charging rent or demurrage on goods seized, detained, or confiscated by customs officers, subject to any other law for the time being in force. The detained consignments therefore attracted the protection of the regulation.

Conclusion: Demurrage charges were to be waived.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded and the detained consignments were ordered to be released on compliance with the stipulated conditions, with demurrage waived.

Ratio Decidendi: Where import rights have crystallised before a restrictive notification takes effect, the later restriction applies only prospectively, and for foreign trade purposes the bill of lading governs the relevant date of import.

---