Bill of Lading date governs importability; later trade restrictions cannot defeat crystallised consignments, and detained cargo gets demurrage protection.

The Madras High Court analysis treats the Bill of Lading date as the relevant date for reckoning import under Foreign Trade Policy 2015-20, and not the Bill of Entry date for customs duty purposes. On that basis, later import restriction notifications on peas and dhalls were held not to defeat consignments where the import transactions had already crystallised and, in the facts noted, the operative restriction was stayed. The discussion also applies the cargo handling regulations to held goods, stating that detained consignments attract protection against demurrage charges. The consignments were released on compliance with directed conditions, with demurrage waived and liberty reserved to the authorities to proceed according to law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the relevant date for reckoning the import of the consignments was the date of Bill of Lading or the date of Bill of Entry; (ii) whether the import restriction notifications applied to the consignments of peas and dhalls in the facts of the case; (iii) whether demurrage charges were liable to be waived for the detained consignments.

Issue (i): Whether the relevant date for reckoning 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, 2015-20 treats the Bill of Lading as the relevant date for reckoning import. The policy was treated as a complete code for this purpose, and the date under section 15 of the Customs Act, 1962 for determination of duty was held not decisive on the question of importability under the policy. Reliance was also placed on the principle that import/export restrictions cannot defeat transactions that had crystallised before the restrictive measure took effect.

Conclusion: The relevant date is the date of Bill of Lading, not the date of Bill of Entry.

Issue (ii): Whether the import restriction notifications applied to the consignments of peas and dhalls in the facts of the case.

Analysis: The restriction on peas was held applicable only to consignments covered by Bills of Lading during 01.10.2018 to 31.12.2018, and not to shipments outside that period. In relation to dhalls, the restriction was found not to operate on the petitioners' consignments on the facts recorded. The Court also noted that the stay on the relevant notification was in force when the imports were made, and that goods could not be treated as barred where the import transactions had crystallised and the operative restriction was under stay.

Conclusion: The consignments in question were not liable to be denied clearance on the basis of the restrictions as applied in the present case.

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

Analysis: Rule 6(1)(l) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 prohibits the Customs Cargo Provider from charging rent or demurrage on goods seized, detained or confiscated by customs officers, subject to other law. As the consignments had been detained by the customs authorities, the regulatory condition for waiver was satisfied.

Conclusion: Demurrage charges were directed to be waived.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner obtained release of the consignments on compliance with the directed conditions, along with waiver of demurrage, while the authorities were left free to proceed in accordance with law if they chose to initiate further action.

Ratio Decidendi: Where import transactions had crystallised and the governing trade policy fixes the Bill of Lading as the relevant date, import restrictions taking effect later operate prospectively and cannot defeat the consignee's accrued rights; detained goods are also entitled to demurrage protection under the cargo regulations.

---