Demurrage remission is discretionary relief, and a port authority may refuse further remission on relevant grounds despite a detention certificate.

Remission of demurrage under Section 53 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 is discretionary and confined to special cases supported by recorded reasons. The Port Trust may independently assess detention claims and is not bound to accept a customs detention certificate mechanically. Relief may be limited where the applicant lacks title during the relevant period or where detention arises from customs disputes and amendment issues. Judicial review will not interfere unless the refusal is illegal, irrational, procedurally improper, arbitrary, or discriminatory. On the stated facts, the refusal to extend remission for the disputed pre-noting period was upheld as based on relevant considerations.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to remission of demurrage for the period prior to noting of the Bills of Entry under Section 53 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 and the governing remission guidelines, and whether the refusal of remission was arbitrary or discriminatory in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Remission of demurrage under Section 53 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 is discretionary and is available only in special cases for reasons recorded in writing. The remission guidelines framed under the Act contemplated relief where detention was due to bona fide ITC formalities or similar specified causes, but the Port Trust was entitled to examine the matter independently and was not bound to accept the detention certificate mechanically. On the facts, the petitioner had no title to the goods for the disputed pre-noting period, the goods remained detained because of customs-related disputes and amendment issues, and the Port Trust had already granted remission to the extent considered admissible on the materials before it. The refusal to extend remission for the earlier period was found to rest on relevant considerations, not on arbitrariness or perversity, and the comparison with the cited instance was held to be factually distinguishable.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to further remission for the disputed period, and the refusal of remission was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed, as no legal infirmity was found in the Port Trust's decision to restrict remission to the extent already granted.

Ratio Decidendi: Remission of demurrage under Section 53 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 is a discretionary, special-case relief that may be refused on relevant grounds even where a customs detention certificate exists, and judicial review will not interfere absent illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety.

---