Statutory duty to dispose of uncleared cargo and partial demurrage waiver where delay was shared

Where uncleared imported goods remain in the port's custody, the statutory scheme under the Customs Act, 1962 and the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 requires the port authority, as statutory custodian, to take timely steps for destuffing, sale or disposal and it cannot refuse to act merely because the goods are still within the customs area or destuffing has not been arranged. On demurrage, where delay is attributable to both the port authority and the importer, full exemption is not warranted; the Court may instead apportion the liability, grant partial waiver for the later period, and direct recalculation of dues with consequential release of the containers after adjustment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the port authority was bound to take steps for destuffing, sale, or disposal of the uncleared containers and cargo under the Customs Act, 1962 and the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. (ii) Whether the demurrage charges levied on the containers and cargo were fully recoverable or liable to be waived partly.

Issue (i): Whether the port authority was bound to take steps for destuffing, sale, or disposal of the uncleared containers and cargo under the Customs Act, 1962 and the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963.

Analysis: The goods remained uncleared for an extended period after landing. Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 permits sale of goods not cleared within the prescribed time with the permission of the proper officer, while Sections 61, 62 and 63 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 provide a mechanism for sale and application of sale proceeds where goods are not removed or charges remain unpaid. The Court held that the port authority, as statutory custodian, could not avoid action merely because the goods were inside the customs area or had not been destuffed by the agent. It was found that the port authority had the power and duty to proceed in accordance with the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The port authority was bound to act under the statutory provisions and could not refuse to proceed on the ground that destuffing had not been arranged.

Issue (ii): Whether the demurrage charges levied on the containers and cargo were fully recoverable or liable to be waived partly.

Analysis: The Court found that both sides contributed to the delay. The port authority failed to take timely statutory steps after expiry of the relevant period, but the petitioner also did not promptly pursue lawful remedies. On that basis, the Court declined full exemption. It directed that demurrage for the period beyond expiry of two months up to 4 April 2003 be shared equally, and that demurrage thereafter be waived. The Court also directed recalculation of dues, reimbursement of sale expenses, payment of the Special Officer's remuneration, and release of the containers.

Conclusion: Full waiver was denied, but demurrage relief was granted partly by apportionment and waiver for the later period.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded only in part, with partial relief against demurrage, reimbursement of sale-related expenses, and directions for release of the containers after adjustment of dues.

Ratio Decidendi: Where uncleared imported goods remain under the custody of the port, the statutory scheme obliges the port authority to take timely action for disposal, and in a case of mutual delay the Court may apportion demurrage and grant partial waiver rather than full exemption.

---