Detention certificate and demurrage: importer-caused delay defeats relief, while old garments are not textiles under the rate entry.

Delay caused by the importer in paying customs duty, arranging mutilation, and clearing the consignment was treated as self-induced laches, so a detention certificate was not warranted and demurrage liability remained. Old or inadequately mutilated garments meant for conversion into rags were held not to be "textiles" for the relevant port-rate entry, because that term was confined to textile fabric in its pure form. On that construction, the goods were properly assessed as unspecified items, and the demurrage levy under the corresponding rate entry was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner was entitled to a detention certificate so as to avoid liability for demurrage charges; (ii) whether the imported goods fell under Item No. 85 of the Scale of Rates as textiles, or under Item No. 92 as unspecified items, for the purpose of demurrage.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner was entitled to a detention certificate so as to avoid liability for demurrage charges.

Analysis: The goods remained in the docks because the petitioner paid customs duty late, did not promptly arrange mutilation under the supervisory arrangement, and removed the consignment only after considerable delay. The delay was attributed to the petitioner's own laches and not to any fault of the Customs authorities. A detention certificate was therefore not warranted.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to a detention certificate and remained liable for demurrage charges.

Issue (ii): Whether the imported goods fell under Item No. 85 of the Scale of Rates as textiles, or under Item No. 92 as unspecified items, for the purpose of demurrage.

Analysis: The imported consignment consisted of old garments or inadequately mutilated garments intended for conversion into rags. The expression "textiles" in Item No. 85 was held to refer to textile fabric in its pure form and not to ready-made garments. On that construction, the goods did not answer Item No. 85 and were correctly treated under Item No. 92.

Conclusion: The levy of demurrage under Item No. 92 was upheld and the petitioner's challenge to the rate failed.

Final Conclusion: The petition failed in substance, and the challenge to the detention certificate and demurrage assessment was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where delay in clearance is attributable to the importer's own conduct, a detention certificate is not available, and old garments intended for mutilation are not "textiles" for a port-rate entry confined to textile fabric.

---