Import release and demurrage liability: prior resolution of objections supported release, but compensation was denied absent authority-caused delay

Import clearance and demurrage liability were addressed by reference to prior proceedings on the same factual objections. The consignments were stated to be entitled to release, with the earlier superdarinama and release conditions revoked, because the objections had already been resolved and no fresh examination was required. The demurrage claim was rejected because compensation was said to arise only where delay in inspection is attributable to the authorities, and no such delay was found on the facts. The note states that the writ petition succeeded only for release-related relief and failed on demurrage compensation.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the importer was entitled to release of the seized consignments and cancellation of the conditions imposed for their release; (ii) whether compensation for demurrage was payable.

Issue (i): whether the importer was entitled to release of the seized consignments and cancellation of the conditions imposed for their release.

Analysis: The entitlement to release turned on the earlier adjudication of the same objections against the importer, which had already been considered and resolved in prior proceedings. The Court treated the factual objections as no longer requiring fresh examination and proceeded on the basis that the importer had succeeded on the issue. In that view, the conditions attached to the earlier release order could not continue to operate against the importer.

Conclusion: The issue is decided in favour of the importer. The consignments were directed to be released, the superdarinama was cancelled, and the conditions imposed for release were revoked.

Issue (ii): whether compensation for demurrage was payable.

Analysis: The claim for demurrage was rejected by adopting the earlier reasoning that liability shifts away from the importer only where delay in inspection is caused by the authorities. On the facts, no such attributable delay was found, and the controversy raised in the case did not justify an award of compensation.

Conclusion: The issue is decided against the importer. The claim for demurrage compensation was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded only to the extent of securing release of the consignments and related ancillary relief, while the claim for demurrage compensation failed, and the matter stood finally disposed of.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the controversy over import clearance has already been resolved against the authorities on the same factual objections, the importer is entitled to release of the goods, but compensation for demurrage is not payable unless delay in inspection is attributable to the authorities.

---