Summary
The Port Trust’s statutory right to demurrage survived customs detention and the 2009 cargo regulations. The importers remained liable, and the facts did not justify shifting demurrage or contractual shipping detention charges to Customs or DRI. The Court left open an application to the Port Trust for discretionary remission.
Issues
- Whether the cargo regulations displaced the Port Trust’s statutory demurrage power.
- Whether Customs or DRI should bear the importers’ demurrage and shipping detention charges.
Provisions considered
- Sections 48, 53, 58 and 59, Major Port Trusts Act, 1963Provides statutory tariff, payment and lien powers, while allowing reasoned exemption or remission in special cases. (¶¶ 19, 30, 46)
- Section 160(9), Customs Act, 1962Preserves the constitution and powers of major-port authorities against impairment under the Customs Act. (¶¶ 19, 29–32)
- Regulation 6(1)(l), Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009Its restriction is expressly subject to other law and cannot override the Port Trust’s statutory charging power. (¶¶ 19, 31–32)
Held
- Even assuming the Port Trust was a customs custodian, the customs legislation and subordinate regulations did not remove its statutory right to tariff and demurrage. Actual custodian status was not decided. (¶ 28–32)
- Shifting charges to Customs or DRI requires established mala fides or gross abuse of power. There was no specific supported finding justifying that result, and the importers also delayed clearance and failed to use provisional-release opportunities. (¶ 34–46)
- Shipping detention charges arose under a private contract; the impugned writ direction making the authorities pay could not stand. The importers could seek statutory remission from the Board, which could consider their case sympathetically. (¶ 46–47)
Result
Appeals allowed without costs; High Court judgment set aside and importers’ writ petitions dismissed. Liberty to seek exemption or remission under Section 53 preserved.