Court orders release of detained goods, directs compliance with customs waiver, allows challenge with compliance obligation.

The Court directed the respondents to release the detained goods and implement the Customs Authority's order for waiver of demurrage charges. The shipping line was given the option to challenge the order but was required to comply with the current directive.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Detention and demurrage charges for imported goods.
2. Compliance with Sea Cargo Manifest and Transhipment Regulations, 2018.
3. Provisional release of goods under the Customs Act, 1962.
4. Implementation of Customs Authority orders.
5. Legal obligations of the shipping line and custodian.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Detention and Demurrage Charges for Imported Goods:
The petitioner, a proprietory firm engaged in the import and trading of "Dry Dates," imported consignments from UAE, which were detained by the Customs Authorities without issuing a detention memo. The goods were detained for further investigation despite the petitioner furnishing all necessary documents, including the Phytosanitary Certificate and Fumigation Certificate. The petitioner faced significant detention charges from the shipping line and custodian due to the delay in clearance.

2. Compliance with Sea Cargo Manifest and Transhipment Regulations, 2018:
The Customs Authorities issued a No Objection Certificate (NOC) and a Detention Memo directing the waiver of detention and demurrage charges under Regulation 10(1)(I) of the Sea Cargo Manifest and Transhipment Regulations, 2018 (SCMTR). Despite this, the shipping line and custodian continued to demand these charges, leading the petitioner to seek judicial intervention for the enforcement of the Customs Authority's order.

3. Provisional Release of Goods under the Customs Act, 1962:
The petitioner argued that under sections 17, 18, 110, 110A, 111, and 119 of the Customs Act, 1962, goods not prohibited for import should be released provisionally. The petitioner cited CBEC circulars directing provisional release unless goods are prohibited and highlighted that the Customs Authorities failed to comply with these provisions, resulting in undue detention and charges.

4. Implementation of Customs Authority Orders:
The Customs Authorities had issued an order on 19.04.2022 directing the waiver of detention charges. However, the shipping line and custodian did not comply, prompting the petitioner to file the present petition. The Court noted that the order dated 19.04.2022 was binding on the respondents and directed them to implement it, releasing the goods within two weeks.

5. Legal Obligations of the Shipping Line and Custodian:
The shipping line argued that the validity of the Delivery Order expired due to the petitioner's delay in clearing the goods. They contended that Regulation 10(1)(I) of SCMTR exempts detention charges only for 60 days and that they were entitled to charge beyond this period. Despite these arguments, the Court directed the respondents to comply with the Customs Authority's order for waiver of charges, while allowing the shipping line the option to challenge the order if desired.

Conclusion:
The Court disposed of the petition by directing the respondents to release the detained goods and implement the Customs Authority's order for waiver of demurrage charges. The Court clarified that the shipping line could challenge the Customs Authority's order if they chose to, but the current order must be complied with.

---