Seized imported goods and demurrage relief: detention charges cannot be levied during customs custody, and a detention certificate may issue.

Imported goods seized by customs and kept under official control during pending proceedings were treated as outside the levy of demurrage or detention charges under the applicable cargo service provider regime, and the absence of a waiver certificate did not change that position. The authority could also be directed to issue a detention certificate where the seizure period justified relief, so the charges were waived for the period of seizure and the certificate was to be issued to support that waiver.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner was liable to pay demurrage and detention charges for the period during which the imported goods remained seized and the customs proceedings were pending; (ii) whether the first respondent could be directed to issue a detention certificate for waiver of such charges.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner was liable to pay demurrage and detention charges for the period during which the imported goods remained seized and the customs proceedings were pending.

Analysis: The imported goods were seized by customs authorities and remained under their control until the proceedings concluded. The applicable customs cargo service provider regime was treated as prohibiting the levy of rent, demurrage, or detention charges on goods that are seized, detained, or confiscated. The absence of a waiver certificate did not alter the effect of the regulation, because the decisive factor was the status of the goods as seized or detained during the relevant period.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not liable to pay demurrage or detention charges for the period up to 19.02.2020.

Issue (ii): Whether the first respondent could be directed to issue a detention certificate for waiver of such charges.

Analysis: The regulations did not bar issuance of a detention certificate, and the practice of issuing such certificates where circumstances warranted was recognised. Since the petitioner established a case for relief, the authority could be directed to issue the certificate to support waiver of the charges for the seizure period.

Conclusion: The first respondent was directed to issue the detention certificate within twelve weeks.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was allowed with relief against recovery of demurrage and detention charges for the period of seizure and with a direction to issue the detention certificate.

Ratio Decidendi: Where imported goods remain seized or detained by customs authorities, the cargo service provider cannot levy demurrage or detention charges for that period, and the authority may be directed to issue a detention certificate to give effect to the waiver.

---