Court excludes demurrage from customs duty under Customs Act, 1962. Previous Apex Court decision upheld.

The court held that demurrage paid by the consignee for delayed unloading should not attract customs duty under the Customs Act, 1962. The court emphasized that demurrage is not part of the value of goods for duty assessment and should be excluded. The court found a previous Apex Court decision on demurrage to be valid and binding, directing the customs authority to reassess the consignment and refund any excess duty paid by the petitioner. The writ petition was disposed of with instructions for reassessment without considering demurrage, refund of excess duty, no costs awarded, and a stay of operation granted for a fortnight.

---

---

Issues involved: Whether demurrage paid by the consignee for delayed unloading can attract customs duty under the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
1. The writ petitioner imported goods and paid demurrage to the Port Trust Authority due to delayed unloading. The customs authority included demurrage in the duty assessment, considering it as part of the freight and additional value of the goods attracting duty.

2. The petitioner's counsel argued that demurrage should not be included in the duty assessment as it is not part of the value of the goods. Citing previous decisions, the counsel contended that demurrage charges are not to be considered for customs duty assessment.

3. The customs department contended that the previous Apex Court decision regarding demurrage was based on concession and should not be relied upon as a precedent. The department argued that demurrage is still pending for decision in another case before the Apex Court.

4. The court analyzed the definition of the value of goods under Section 14(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, which includes the price at which goods are sold or offered for sale at the time and place of importation. The court concluded that demurrage, being a consequence of delayed unloading, is not to be included in the value for customs duty assessment.

5. Regarding the concession made by the revenue counsel before the Apex Court, the court held that such concessions do not bind the party and emphasized the importance of logical interpretations by counsels. The court found the Apex Court judgment valid and binding, directing the customs authority to reassess the consignment and refund any excess duty paid by the petitioner.

6. The court disposed of the writ petition, ordering the customs authority to reassess the consignment without considering demurrage for duty assessment. The excess amount collected was to be refunded to the petitioner with interest. No costs were awarded, and a stay of operation was granted for a fortnight from the date of the judgment.

---