High Court rules imported fabric seizure unlawful, directs reimbursement to respondent. Customs liable for stolen goods.

The High Court of Delhi ruled in multiple appeals involving the seizure of imported polyster fabric due to alleged lack of valid licenses. It was determined that the goods were lawfully imported with valid licenses. The court held the customs authorities liable for stolen goods in their custody and directed reimbursement to the respondent. Demurrage charges were excluded from payment post six months from a specified date. The appellant was ordered to pay interest and disburse the entitled amount to the respondent. The judgment concluded with the disbursement of the deposited amount by the Registry.

---

---

Issues: Seizure of imported polyster fabric, validity of licenses, theft of goods in custody, demurrage charges deduction, liability of customs authorities, interest payment, disbursement of deposited amount.

In this judgment, the High Court of Delhi addressed multiple appeals concerning the seizure of polyster fabric imported by the respondent due to alleged lack of valid licenses. It was later established that the consignments were indeed covered by valid licenses and imported lawfully. The court noted that the goods, being perishable, were allowed to be sold during the proceedings, with the sale proceeds to be kept in a fixed deposit account. The stolen goods, while in custody of the appellant, were valued at Rs. 8,37,879, and demurrage charges were disputed by the respondent. The Single Judge's order directed the appellant to reimburse the respondent for the stolen goods' value, exclude demurrage charges from payment, and pay interest at 7% per annum from seizure till payment.

The primary issues considered were the liability of the customs authorities for the stolen goods and the deduction of demurrage charges. The court ruled that since the stolen goods were under the customs department's custody, covered by valid licenses, and should not have been seized, the authorities were responsible for reimbursing the respondent. Regarding demurrage charges, delays in selling the goods, despite court orders, led to the decision that the charges post six months from the specified date were not the respondent's burden. The court upheld the interest payment order and directed the appellant to disburse the entitled amount to the respondent.

The judgment concluded by ordering the disbursement of the deposited amount, with the Registry tasked to calculate and distribute the funds accordingly. All three appeals were disposed of based on the court's findings on the liability for stolen goods, demurrage charges, and interest payment.

---