Detention certificates and demurrage charges: customs custody notices may require exclusion of certified detention periods.

Imported goods detained in customs custody were held to require exclusion of the certified detention period from demurrage and warehousing charges. The majority view was that a detention certificate issued under the customs scheme bound the airport custodian and warehousing corporation, because the public notice and custody regulations had to be read harmoniously and the custodian's charging power did not extend to the certified detention period. It was also stated that the Customs Collector could validly issue a public notice directing that no custody or warehousing charges be recovered for that period. A dissenting view held that the Customs Act did not authorise such a direction and that the custodian's own charging rights could not be curtailed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a detention certificate issued by the Customs authorities bound the airport custodian and the warehousing corporation to waive demurrage for the certified detention period; (ii) whether the Customs Collector could validly direct, by public notice issued under the Customs Act, that no custody or warehousing charges be recovered for the period covered by detention certificates.

Issue (i): Whether a detention certificate issued by the Customs authorities bound the airport custodian and the warehousing corporation to waive demurrage for the certified detention period?

Analysis: Imported goods remained in the customs area under statutory custody until clearance. The custodian's right to levy charges under its own statute and regulations did not operate in isolation where the goods were detained under customs control. The Customs public notice and the custodian's regulations had to be read harmoniously, and the detention certificate issued under the statutory scheme fixed the period for which no demurrage was to be charged. The custodian could not treat the certified detention period as chargeable free days only on a graded-waiver basis when the statutory notice required exclusion of that period altogether.

Conclusion: Yes. The detention certificate was binding for the certified period, and no demurrage could be charged for that period.

Issue (ii): Whether the Customs Collector could validly direct, by public notice issued under the Customs Act, that no custody or warehousing charges be recovered for the period covered by detention certificates?

Analysis: The customs power to approve custodians and regulate custody of imported goods in the customs area included power to issue a valid public notice governing the manner in which detained goods were to be treated. The notice was issued to carry out the purposes of the Customs Act and did not trench upon the custodian's statutory charging power except to the extent of the certified detention period. The custodian took goods subject to the statutory conditions of custody, and the public notice was not inconsistent with the Act. The majority rejected the view that the notice was ultra vires or unenforceable against the custodian.

Conclusion: Yes. The public notice was valid and enforceable, and the custodian had to act on it.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the High Court's directions were set aside, and the writ petitions were dismissed because demurrage could not be levied for the period covered by the Customs detention certificates.

Dissenting Opinion: One Judge held that the Customs Collector had no power under the Customs Act to direct the custodian not to collect charges, and that the detention certificate could not curtail the custodian's right under its own statute and regulations to levy demurrage.

Ratio Decidendi: Where imported goods are held in customs custody under a valid statutory public notice, the custodian must exclude the certified detention period from demurrage charges, and the Customs authorities may validly regulate that consequence within the customs custody scheme.

---