Court denies waiver of demurrage charges, allows negotiations for concessions, upholds customs actions.

The court rejected the petitioner's claim for waiver of demurrage or detention charges beyond 13.01.2022, citing failure to apply for an extension within the stipulated period. While the court allowed private negotiations for concessions with the respondents from 14.01.2022 onwards, it emphasized the petitioner's responsibility for mis-declaration of goods and upheld the customs authorities' actions. The writ petitions were disposed of without costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to waiver of demurrage or detention charges beyond 13.01.2022.
2. Compliance with the Customs Act and relevant regulations (2009 and 2018 Regulations).
3. Obligations and responsibilities of the petitioner regarding mis-declaration of goods.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to Waiver of Demurrage or Detention Charges Beyond 13.01.2022:
The core issue is whether the petitioner is entitled to seek waiver of demurrage or detention charges from the fourth and fifth respondents beyond 13.01.2022. The petitioner argued that the customs authorities' permission letter dated 13.01.2022 and advice notes to the respondents should exempt them from such charges. However, the respondents contended that any waiver beyond 60 days is not permissible under the regulations. The court noted that the customs authorities had provided a waiver up to 13.01.2022, and beyond this period, the petitioner did not apply for an extension within the stipulated 30 days. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to waiver beyond 13.01.2022.

2. Compliance with the Customs Act and Relevant Regulations (2009 and 2018 Regulations):
The court examined Section 49 of the Customs Act, which allows for the storage of imported goods in a public warehouse for up to 30 days, extendable by another 30 days by the Commissioner of Customs. The relevant regulations, Regulation 6(1)(l) of the 2009 Regulations and Regulation 10(l) of the 2018 Regulations, prevent charging rent or demurrage on goods detained by customs, but only up to a maximum of 60 days. The court found that the customs authorities had appropriately exercised their power under these provisions, but any waiver beyond 60 days is not legally permissible.

3. Obligations and Responsibilities of the Petitioner Regarding Mis-declaration of Goods:
The petitioner admitted to mis-declaration of goods and paid the revised customs duty, penalty, and redemption charges totaling Rs. 65 lakhs. The court emphasized that the petitioner must shoulder the responsibility for the mis-declaration. The customs authorities had confiscated the goods and allowed redemption after payment of the necessary charges. The court found no basis for the petitioner's claim for further waiver of charges beyond the legally permissible period.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the petitioner's claim for waiver of demurrage or detention charges beyond 13.01.2022 is untenable and rejected the writ petitions. The court, however, allowed the petitioner to negotiate privately with the respondents for any concessions on the charges from 14.01.2022 onwards. The respondents were directed to consider such requests in light of the pending writ petitions.

Final Order:
Both writ petitions were disposed of without any order as to costs, allowing the petitioner to negotiate with the respondents for potential concessions on charges beyond the stipulated period.

---