Detention certificate and demurrage remission denied where import delay was attributable to the importer and discretion was validly exercised

Contemporaneous customs records showed that clearance delay before 7 July 1982 was attributable to the importer and incomplete formalities, so refusal to issue a detention certificate for the earlier period was upheld. The request for waiver of demurrage under Section 53 of the Major Port Trusts Act was also rejected because remission was sought late, the goods were not cleared when release became possible, and the facts did not justify interference with the Port Trust's discretion. On judicial review, the administrative decisions on both detention certificate and demurrage remission were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Customs authorities were bound to grant a detention certificate for the entire period claimed by the importer. (ii) Whether the Port Trust was bound to waive demurrage charges under Section 53 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963.

Issue (i): Whether the Customs authorities were bound to grant a detention certificate for the entire period claimed by the importer.

Analysis: The record and endorsements on the bills of entry showed that the delay before 7 July 1982 was attributable to the petitioner's side and to non-completion of the required formalities, rather than to any default on the part of the Customs authorities. The Court found the official record reliable and rejected the allegation that the Customs authorities had wrongly withheld action or delayed appraisal without justification.

Conclusion: The refusal to grant a detention certificate for any period earlier than 7 July 1982 was upheld, against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the Port Trust was bound to waive demurrage charges under Section 53 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963.

Analysis: The Court held that the request for remission was made late, after the goods had not been cleared even when release became possible, and that the facts did not justify interference with the Port Trust's exercise of discretion. The petitioner's failure to clear the goods and the circumstances of the application supported rejection of the claim for waiver.

Conclusion: The refusal to waive demurrage charges was upheld, against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The petition was found to disclose no ground for interference, and the adverse administrative decisions on both detention certificate and demurrage remission were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the contemporaneous record shows that delay in customs clearance was attributable to the importer and the statutory authority has validly exercised discretion on remission of demurrage, the Court will not interfere in judicial review.

---