High Court Directs Release of Goods, Warns Against Container Detention Charges

The High Court issued directions for the release of goods and issuance of a detention certificate. The department complied with the release order but faced challenges in clearing the goods due to demands for demurrage and other charges. The Court emphasized statutory regulations prohibiting container detention charges and rent/demurrage on goods seized by Customs Authorities. It highlighted the department's authority to enforce regulatory compliance and warned of adverse consequences if compliance is not ensured. The matter was listed for further hearing, pressuring the department to promptly address non-compliance issues to avoid contempt proceedings.

---

---

Issues:
1. Compliance with court directions regarding release of goods and detention certificate issuance.
2. Dispute over payment of demurrage and other charges by the petitioner.
3. Interpretation of contractual relationship between petitioner and container freight station/shipping liner.
4. Applicability of statutory regulations on waiver of charges.
5. Authority of the department to enforce compliance with regulations.

Analysis:
1. The High Court issued directions for the release of goods and issuance of a detention certificate. The department complied with the release order based on a test report. However, the detention certificate was issued for the entire detention period till goods release, but the petitioner faced challenges in clearing the goods due to demands for demurrage and other charges by the CFS/Shipping Line.

2. The revenue argued that the dispute between the petitioner and the CFS/Shipping Line is contractual, relying on precedents like Mumbai Port Trust and J.J. Polyplast Pvt. Ltd. The Court distinguished these cases, emphasizing that the statutory Sea Cargo Manifest and Transhipment Regulations, 2018 bind both the department and license holders, prohibiting container detention charges and rent/demurrage on goods seized by Customs Authorities.

3. The Court highlighted Regulation 11 of the 2018-2019 Regulations, empowering the department to suspend operations or revoke registration of carriers for non-compliance. It rejected the notion that the dispute is purely contractual, emphasizing the department's authority to enforce regulatory compliance.

4. The Court noted that the CFS and shipping line were not parties to the application, granting the petitioner liberty to take appropriate steps. It urged the department to resolve the issues, warning of adverse inferences and stringent orders if compliance is not ensured.

5. The matter was listed for further hearing on 11th March 2022, maintaining pressure on the department to address the non-compliance issues promptly to avoid contempt proceedings.

---