Court rules customs service provider cannot charge rent/demurrage on seized goods, must comply with regulations.

The court held that the customs cargo service provider cannot charge rent or demurrage on seized or detained goods, emphasizing compliance with relevant regulations. The respondent, as a Customs Cargo Service Provider, was directed to release the goods without imposing charges and refund the wrongly recovered amount as demurrage. The judgment clarified the legal position on this issue, highlighting the provider's obligation to adhere to regulations and lawful directions from customs authorities.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether the customs cargo service provider is entitled to charge rent or demurrage on seized, detained, or confiscated goods.

Analysis:
The writ-application under Article 226 sought relief from the court, challenging the imposition of unjust and illegal detention and ground rent charges by the respondents. The court heard arguments from both parties' counsels and deliberated on the issue of whether the customs cargo service provider can levy charges on seized or detained goods. The court referred to a recent decision of the Bombay High Court in a similar case to analyze the legal provisions under the Customs Act and relevant regulations.

The central question before the court was whether the respondent, a customs cargo service provider, could charge rent or demurrage on goods seized or detained by customs authorities. The court cited Section 45 of the Customs Act, which outlines the custody and removal of imported goods, emphasizing that the Customs Cargo Service Provider has a legal obligation not to charge any rent or demurrage on such goods. This obligation is further clarified in Regulation 6 of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009.

The court highlighted that the respondent, being a Customs Cargo Service Provider as defined in the Regulations, was bound by the responsibilities outlined in Regulation 6, specifically clause (l), which prohibits charging rent or demurrage on seized or detained goods. The court noted that the respondent had detained the petitioner's goods beyond the prescribed period, leading to a violation of the regulations. The court rejected the argument that the dispute was contractual, emphasizing the respondent's obligation to act responsibly as a government enterprise under the control of customs authorities.

In conclusion, the court directed the respondent to release the goods without charging rent or demurrage and ordered the refund of the amount wrongly recovered as demurrage. The judgment clarified the legal position regarding the charging of rent or demurrage by customs cargo service providers on seized or detained goods, emphasizing compliance with regulations and lawful directions from customs authorities.

---