Court Orders Release of Detained Goods Sans Charges; Emphasizes Compliance with Customs Regulations

The High Court directed the Customs Cargo Service Provider to release the detained goods without charging rent or demurrage, citing the legal obligation under Regulation 6(1)(l) and a public notice. The court emphasized the applicability of the regulation prohibiting such charges on detained goods and highlighted the provider's legal obligations. Additionally, the court asserted its jurisdiction over the matter, rejecting the argument that it should be resolved in a civil court and emphasizing the importance of complying with customs regulations. The writ petition was allowed, allowing the petitioner to re-export the goods as approved by customs authorities.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether respondent No. 1 is obligated to release the detained goods without charging rent or demurrage.
2. The applicability of Regulation 6(1)(l) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009.
3. The legal obligations of Customs Cargo Service Providers regarding the charging of rent or demurrage on detained goods.
4. The jurisdiction and appropriateness of the High Court to adjudicate the dispute.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Obligation to Release Detained Goods Without Rent or Demurrage
The petitioner, a company engaged in the import and export of plastic granules and regrind, sought the release of its imported goods detained by the customs department. The goods were detained from 14.08.2018 to 06.02.2019, as certified by the Superintendent of Customs. Despite fulfilling conditions for re-export and presenting the required certificate, respondent No. 1, a Customs Cargo Service Provider, refused to release the goods without payment of rent and demurrage charges. The court directed respondent No. 1 to release the goods without charging rent or demurrage for the detention period, citing the legal obligation under Regulation 6(1)(l) and the public notice dated 02.03.2010.

Issue 2: Applicability of Regulation 6(1)(l)
Regulation 6(1)(l) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009, prohibits Customs Cargo Service Providers from charging rent or demurrage on goods seized, detained, or confiscated by customs authorities. The court emphasized that respondent No. 1, as a Customs Cargo Service Provider, must adhere to this regulation. The regulation was further clarified by a public notice, which mandated that goods should be released without rent or demurrage upon presenting a proper certificate.

Issue 3: Legal Obligations of Customs Cargo Service Providers
Respondent No. 1, being a Customs Cargo Service Provider, is legally bound to follow the responsibilities outlined in Regulation 6, particularly clause (l). The court highlighted that respondent No. 1's failure to release the goods and its demand for rent and demurrage were unlawful. The court noted that the goods were detained by customs authorities, and the petitioner had complied with all conditions for re-export, including furnishing a bank guarantee and P.D. Bond.

Issue 4: Jurisdiction and Appropriateness of High Court
Respondent No. 2 argued that the dispute was contractual and should be resolved in a civil court. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that respondent No. 1, a Government of India enterprise, must act responsibly and in accordance with customs regulations. The court asserted its jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter, emphasizing that respondent No. 1's actions were in violation of legal obligations and customs authorities' directions.

Conclusion:
The court directed respondent No. 1 to release the detained goods without charging rent or demurrage, allowing the petitioner to re-export the goods as per customs authorities' approval. The writ petition was allowed, and the court underscored the importance of adhering to customs regulations and lawful directions.

---