Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether demurrage charges were payable by the Customs authorities for the period during which the imported goods remained detained after the adjudication order had dropped the proceedings, and whether the goods were liable to be released forthwith to the petitioners.
Analysis: The adjudication proceedings against the petitioners had already been dropped, and the order was not challenged. The continued detention of the goods after that stage was treated as unjustified. Reliance was placed on the principle that where the Customs authorities illegally detain goods and such detention prevents the importer from clearing them, liability for demurrage may fall on the Customs authorities, especially where no statutory provision absolves them of that burden. The Port Trust was also entitled, under the applicable port trust provision, to recover demurrage before release of the goods.
Conclusion: The Customs authorities were directed to bear the demurrage for the post-4 April 2001 period, while the petitioners were made liable for the earlier period. The goods were directed to be released forthwith in favour of the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: Where imported goods are illegally detained by the Customs authorities after the underlying proceedings have been dropped, the authorities may be made liable for the resulting demurrage, while release of the goods must follow without undue delay.