Exemption notification terms govern customs relief, while demurrage exemption remains limited to the certified detention period.

An exemption notification for woollen wastes and woollen rags was applied according to its own terms, so customs authorities could not deny duty relief by relying on trade advice or by adding a minimum wool-content requirement not found in the notification. The detention certificate and demurrage exemption were confined to the certified period during which the goods remained under customs examination; the exemption did not extend beyond that detention period. For post-detention charges, woollen rags were treated as rags rather than textiles, so demurrage fell under the residuary rate and not the textile rate.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the imported woollen rags were entitled to exemption from customs duty under the exemption notification despite the customs authorities' reliance on trade advice and a finding that wool content was below 50 per cent; (ii) whether the petitioners were entitled to a detention certificate and exemption from demurrage charges only for the period during which the goods were detained for customs examination; (iii) whether demurrage for the post-detention period was chargeable under Item 85 or Item 92 of the Scale of Rates.

Issue (i): Whether the imported woollen rags were entitled to exemption from customs duty under the exemption notification despite the customs authorities' reliance on trade advice and a finding that wool content was below 50 per cent.

Analysis: The exemption notification granted full exemption to woollen wastes and woollen rags and did not impose any requirement that the goods must contain at least 50 per cent wool. Trade advice issued by the Government had no statutory force and could not be the basis for denying the exemption. The finding that the first two tests were discarded without sound reason and that the third test alone was treated as conclusive for the whole consignment was held to be unsustainable and perverse.

Conclusion: The denial of customs duty exemption was set aside and the petitioners were held entitled to clearance without payment of customs duty.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioners were entitled to a detention certificate and exemption from demurrage charges only for the period during which the goods were detained for customs examination.

Analysis: The relevant scale of rates exempted goods detained by the customs department for special examination involving analytical or technical tests from demurrage only for the certified period of such detention. The exemption did not extend beyond the period of customs detention. Since the goods were under customs examination until the end of May 1975, the petitioners were entitled to the certificate for that period only.

Conclusion: The petitioners were entitled to a detention certificate only up to 31 May 1975 and not for the later period.

Issue (iii): Whether demurrage for the post-detention period was chargeable under Item 85 or Item 92 of the Scale of Rates.

Analysis: Item 85 covered textiles in their proper character and not woollen rags, which retained the character of rags and did not become textiles for the purpose of the scale of rates. The residuary Item 92 therefore governed the demurrage for the period after customs detention ended.

Conclusion: Demurrage for the period after 31 May 1975 was payable under Item 92 and not Item 85.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded on customs duty and detention certificate entitlement up to the end of May 1975, but failed on the claim for exemption from post-May 1975 demurrage and on the applicable rate of demurrage.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption notification must be applied according to its own terms, and administrative trade advice cannot add conditions not found in the notification; for demurrage, exemption is limited to the certified period of customs detention, while rags do not qualify as textiles merely because they are woollen material.

---