Bill of Lading date governs import restriction, while detained consignments attract demurrage waiver under customs cargo rules.

Regulation 9.11 of the Foreign Trade Policy treated the Bill of Lading date as the relevant date for reckoning import, so the Bill of Entry date was not controlling for applying the restriction; the Court held that the import date was the Bill of Lading date. The dhall consignments were not covered by any operative embargo on the facts stated, so their release was not barred. For peas imported between 01.10.2018 and 31.12.2018 and covered by Bills of Lading during that period, the relevant restriction had been stayed when the imports were made, so detention on that ground was unsustainable and release was directed on prescribed conditions. As the goods were detained by customs, demurrage was required to be waived under the cargo handling regulations.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the relevant date for reckoning import of the consignments was the date of Bill of Lading or Bill of Entry; (ii) Whether there was any embargo on import of the consignments of dhalls; (iii) Whether there was any embargo on import of peas imported during 01.10.2018 to 31.12.2018 and covered by Bills of Lading for that period; (iv) Whether demurrage charges were liable to be waived.

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

Analysis: Regulation 9.11 of the Foreign Trade Policy treated the Bill of Lading date as the relevant date for reckoning import. In view of that specific policy provision, the date of Bill of Entry under the Customs Act was not treated as controlling for deciding whether the impugned restriction applied. The Court also relied on the principle that a vested or accrued right cannot be taken away by a later restriction having only prospective operation.

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

Issue (ii): Whether there was any embargo on import of the consignments of dhalls.

Analysis: The restriction notifications referred to in the judgment did not stipulate the same temporal embargo for dhalls as for peas, and the admitted facts showed that the dhall imports did not attract the operative restriction in the same manner. On that basis, the Court held that the dhall consignments were not hit by an embargo for the purpose of release.

Conclusion: There was no embargo preventing release of the dhall consignments.

Issue (iii): Whether there was any embargo on import of peas imported during 01.10.2018 to 31.12.2018 and covered by Bills of Lading for that period.

Analysis: The restriction on peas was continued by the notifications, but the operation of the relevant notification had already been stayed by interim orders when the imports were made. Since the goods were covered by Bills of Lading during the operative period and the stay was in force, the consignments were treated as not liable to detention on that ground. The Court accordingly directed release of the consignments on conditions as to duty and bank guarantee.

Conclusion: There was no operative embargo against release of the peas consignments covered by Bills of Lading during the stated period.

Issue (iv): Whether demurrage charges were liable to be waived.

Analysis: Regulation 6(1)(l) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 prohibited the cargo provider from charging rent or demurrage on goods seized or detained by customs officers. Since the consignments had been detained by customs, the regulatory condition for waiver was satisfied.

Conclusion: Demurrage charges were directed to be waived.

Final Conclusion: The consignments were ordered to be released on the prescribed conditions, and demurrage relief was granted, leaving the authorities free to proceed in accordance with law on the merits of the transactions.

Ratio Decidendi: Where import-restrictive notifications are stayed and the governing trade policy fixes Bill of Lading as the relevant date of import, detention of consignments imported during the stayed period cannot be sustained, and demurrage cannot be levied on goods detained by customs.

---