Equitable release of imported goods through shared port and demurrage liability where confiscation proceedings were found infirm.

Where confiscation proceedings were found infirm for violation of natural justice and the importer was not wholly responsible for the delay, the Court declined to insist on full payment of port and demurrage charges as a precondition for release of the goods. It directed an equitable interim arrangement: charges accrued up to intimation were to be calculated, the petitioners were to bear one-third, the Customs Authorities the remaining two-thirds, and the goods were to be released on payment of normal duties, bank charges, and an undertaking protecting the revenue position if the writ petition ultimately failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the imported goods were entitled to be released pending final hearing without fastening the petitioners with the entire burden of port and demurrage charges; (ii) whether, for release of the goods, the petitioners were required to bear only a part of the port and demurrage charges with the balance to be paid by the Customs Authorities.

Issue (i): whether the imported goods were entitled to be released pending final hearing without fastening the petitioners with the entire burden of port and demurrage charges

Analysis: The seizure and confiscation proceedings were found to be uncertain in their basis, and the appellate authority had already set aside the confiscation orders for violation of natural justice. In that backdrop, the Court held that the petitioners should not be compelled at that stage to shoulder the full burden of port and demurrage charges as a condition for release of the goods, though their own delay and carelessness were noted.

Conclusion: The petitioners were entitled to immediate release of the goods without being fully saddled with the entire port and demurrage liability.

Issue (ii): whether, for release of the goods, the petitioners were required to bear only a part of the port and demurrage charges with the balance to be paid by the Customs Authorities

Analysis: The Court directed a pragmatic interim arrangement to secure release of the goods while also protecting the Port Authorities' dues. It ordered calculation of the charges accrued up to the date of intimation, payment of one-third by the petitioners, payment of the remaining two-thirds by the Customs Authorities, and release of the goods after such payment, along with payment of normal duties and bank charges. An undertaking was also required from the petitioners to safeguard the revenue position if they ultimately failed in the writ petition.

Conclusion: The petitioners were required to pay one-third of the port and demurrage charges, with the balance payable by the Customs Authorities, and the goods were to be released thereafter on payment of duties and bank charges.

Final Conclusion: Interim relief was granted by directing release of the goods on a conditional sharing of port and demurrage charges, while leaving the writ petition for hearing on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where confiscation proceedings are infirm and the importer is not wholly responsible for delay, the Court may direct release of the goods on an equitable interim allocation of port and demurrage charges rather than insisting on full payment by the importer alone.

---