Demurrage and detention certificate principles: storage charges remain recoverable, while unstayed customs relief can justify certificate issuance.

Demurrage may be levied by the custodian under its own regulations even when imported goods are detained during customs proceedings, because customs control over clearance is distinct from the right to charge for storage occupation; the challenge to restrain demurrage therefore failed. Where the importer had succeeded before the adjudicating authority, the show cause notice had been dropped, and no stay operated against that order, a detention certificate was ordinarily warranted as a corollary relief. The pending customs appeal created uncertainty, so the certificate was to be issued within the stipulated time if the appeal was not decided within three weeks or was rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner could seek a direction that the third respondent should not levy demurrage charges for the detained imported goods; (ii) whether the petitioner, having succeeded before the adjudicating authority and in the absence of any stay of the order dropping the show cause notice, was entitled to a detention certificate pending the customs appeal.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner could seek a direction that the third respondent should not levy demurrage charges for the detained imported goods.

Analysis: Demurrage was held to be recoverable by the airport authority under its own regulations, notwithstanding that the goods were detained during customs adjudication. The distinction between customs control over clearance of goods and the authority's right to charge for occupation of storage space was treated as decisive. The pendency or result of customs proceedings did not, by itself, extinguish the right to claim demurrage.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to a direction restraining levy of demurrage charges, and this relief failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner, having succeeded before the adjudicating authority and in the absence of any stay of the order dropping the show cause notice, was entitled to a detention certificate pending the customs appeal.

Analysis: The Court treated detention certificate as an administrative relief ordinarily issued where customs detention caused delay not attributable to the importer. Since the show cause notice had been dropped and there was no stay of that order, the petitioner would normally be entitled to such certificate. At the same time, the pendency of the departmental appeal created uncertainty because any benefit against demurrage could be affected if the appeal succeeded. The Court therefore protected both sides by directing early disposal of the appeal and linking the certificate to the outcome if the appeal was not decided promptly or was rejected.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to a detention certificate, and the respondents were directed to issue it within the stipulated time if the appeal was not decided within three weeks or was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded only to the extent of the detention certificate relief, while the challenge to levy of demurrage did not succeed.

Ratio Decidendi: Demurrage may be levied by the custodian under its regulations despite customs detention, but where the importer has succeeded before the adjudicating authority and the customs order is unstayed, a detention certificate is ordinarily warranted as a corollary relief, subject to the outcome of the pending appeal.

---