Unaccompanied baggage and customs detention: demurrage cannot be charged for the certified detention period.

Unaccompanied baggage detained by customs was treated as baggage, not cargo, for demurrage purposes, so the Airport Authority could not levy demurrage or storage charges for the period the goods remained under customs control. The applicable public notice for detained or mishandled baggage required exclusion of the customs detention period from the chargeable period, while the notice governing export and import cargo did not apply. On that basis, charges for the detention period were unrecoverable and transhipment was to proceed without payment of demurrage or ground rent.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether demurrage or storage charges could be levied on unaccompanied baggage detained by customs and kept in the Airport Authority's custody; (ii) whether Public Notice No. 29/86 applied to such baggage and required waiver of charges for the period of customs detention.

Issue (i): Whether demurrage or storage charges could be levied on unaccompanied baggage detained by customs and kept in the Airport Authority's custody.

Analysis: The judgment distinguished baggage from cargo and held that baggage includes unaccompanied baggage under the Customs Act. It also noted that the statutory provisions governing unloading, custody, warehousing and demurrage for imported commercial goods did not apply in the same manner to baggage. The Airport Authority's own regulations did not provide for demurrage on baggage, and the detention certificate reflected the period during which the goods remained under customs control. In that setting, the claim for demurrage on the detained baggage was not sustainable.

Conclusion: The levy of demurrage or storage charges on the unaccompanied baggage was not justified, and the petitioners were entitled to transhipment without such payment.

Issue (ii): Whether Public Notice No. 29/86 applied to such baggage and required waiver of charges for the period of customs detention.

Analysis: Public Notice No. 29/86 governed detained or mishandled baggage and specifically contemplated deduction of the period of detention at the instance of customs from the chargeable period. Public Notice No. 30/86, by contrast, concerned export and import cargo and was inapplicable to baggage. Since the goods were baggage and not cargo, and since the Airport Authority was acting as custodian under the customs arrangement, the public notice bound the Authority in relation to the detention period certified by customs.

Conclusion: Public Notice No. 29/86 applied, and charges for the customs detention period could not be recovered.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded, and the goods were ordered to be transhipped to Nepal without payment of demurrage or ground rent.

Ratio Decidendi: Unaccompanied baggage detained by customs cannot be treated as cargo for the purpose of demurrage, and where the applicable customs notice excludes the detention period certified by customs, the custodian cannot recover charges for that period.

---