Calcutta High Court
Om Shankar Biyani vs Collector Of Customs on 16 September, 1991
Equivalent citations: 1992(60)ELT54(CAL)
Author: Ruma Pal
Bench: Ruma Pal
JUDGMENT Ruma Pal, J.
1. Two questions are involved in this Writ Application. The first relates to the rate of Customs duty and the second to the question of demurrage. The facts giving rise to these questions are:
2. On 30th July 1989, the petitioner imported consignments of pillow block bearings of NBR, Asahi and NSK brands (referred to as the goods) from Singapore.
3. On 25th July 1989, the Assistant Collector of Customs assessed the goods and allowed clearance upon payment of Customs Duty on the invoice value and subject to the petitioner furnishing a PD bond for hundred per cent of the invoice value. On the same day the petitioner furnished the PD bond for Rs. 63,637/- which was the invoice value of the goods and three days later paid the customs duty amounting to Rs. 1,24,691/- as assessed by the Assistant Collector of Customs. As the respondents were not permitting clearance of the goods despite compliance with the order dated 25th July 1989, the petitioner filed this writ application challenging the refusal of the Customs Authority to release the goods and for a direction of the Customs Authority to pay the demurrage which had accrued by reason of the non-release of the goods.
4. Several interim orders have been passed in this proceeding which are noted in greater detail later in this judgment. Briefly stated these orders initially directed the release of the goods subject to the fulfilment of conditions by the petitioner and subsequently the removal of the goods to a customs warehouse under Section 49 of the Customs Act, 1962 (referred to as the Act). The goods were neither released nor kept in a warehouse under Section 49.
5. In the meanwhile, on 24th January 1990 the Customs Authorities issued a notice under Section 124 of the Act to the petitioner. This show cause notice has not been challenged by the petitioner nor has the petitioner replied thereto.
6. On 2-2-1990 the Port Trust Authorities appeared and submitted that the goods could not be removed without meeting the port charges. It was claimed that the Port Trust Authorities had a lien over the goods under the provisions of the Major Port Trust Act. By an order dated 2-2-1990, the Court appointed a special officer under whose supervision the goods were to be immediately stored in the bonded warehouse and the petitioner and/or his clearing Agent were directed to extend all necessary facilities for removing the goods by providing trucks and men for keeping the goods in the bonded warehouse. The Customs Authorities and the Port Trust Authorities were directed not to raise any objection to such storing in the bonded warehouse which was to be without prejudice and subject to the result of the writ petition.
7. On the 9th February, 1990 the petitioner paid the remuneration of the special officer and made all arrangements as directed. The Port Authorities however, filed an appeal from the order dated 2-2-1990 and obtained a stay of the operation of the order. This ad interim order of stay was confirmed on 11-5-1990.
8. This matter was heard on several days. Hearing was concluded on 28th June 1991. It is not disputed that the goods have not been removed to the bonded warehouse till today.
9. As far as the rate of Customs Duty is concerned it has been contended by the petitioner :-
(1) After provisional assessment is made and duty paid on that basis the Customs Authorities were obliged to release the goods and have no statutory right to withhold the same.
(2) The Assistant Collector of Customs, Group-V who assessed the goods had passed an order. The said order is still valid and not set aside. The Collector of Customs have not taken recourse to Section 129D(2). Therefore, the Customs Authorities are bound by the said order.
(3) If the initial assessment is a provisional assessment, it is the duty of the Customs Authorities to make the final assessment within a reasonable time. In the instant case no such final assessment has yet been made and therefore, the Customs Authorities have no subsisting claim against the petitioner in respect of these goods for which they can detain the goods.
(4) There is no material to suggest under-invoicing of the three types of bearings imported. It is contended that the Customs Authorities had not produced any material in respect of NSK and NBR brand of bearings showing under-invoicing. In respect of ASAHI brand they produced a document, as to the nature of which they themselves were not sure. They have failed to prove under-invoicing. It is contended that the Customs Authorities have acted on mere suspicion and conjecture which they are not entitled to do. Therefore, it is urged that the Customs Authorities are obliged forthwith to release the goods.
10. The petitioner has relied upon the following cases in this connection :-
(i) Babcock Venkateshwara Hatcheries v. Collector of Customs, Bombay - ;
(ii) Automotive Enterprises v. Collector of Customs - ;
(iii) Walia Enterprise, Amritsar v. Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Chandigarh - ;
(iv) Sharad Himmattal Daphtary v. Collector of Customs - ;
(v) Rakesh Press, New Delhi v. Collector of Customs - ;
(vi) Orient Express, New Delhi v. Collector of Customs, Cochin - ;
(vii) Junta Traders, Bombay v. Collector of Customs, Bombay - .
11. Under Section 18 of the Act a provisional assessment can be made in specified circumstances, and goods released against the furnishing of security. A final assessment is made under Section 17. There is no provision for furnishing of security under a final assessment. In this case the petitioner was asked to furnish a PD Bond. The assessment made on 25-7-1989 is therefore under Section 18 of the Act.
12. One of the circumstances for provisional assessment under Section 18 is under Sub-section (1)(c) which provides:
"Where the proper officer deems it necessary to make further enquiry for assessing the duty."
13. Ordinarily the importer is allowed to remove the goods upon compliance with the terms of the provisional assessment. In this case, however, there was a seizure of the goods imported by the petitioner under Section 110 on 1-8-1989, that is almost immediately after the petitioner had complied With the provisional assessment order. This seizure has not been challenged. Therefore the right of release of the goods under Section 18 of the Act was negated.
14. A seizure under Section 110 is to be followed by a show cause notice under Section 124 within six months, if not the seized goods are required to be released [vide Section 110(2)]. In this case the Customs Authorities did follow the seizure by a notice under Section 124 within six months of the seizure of the goods.
15. No doubt the decisions cited by the petitioner lay down that if a charge of misdeclaration is made against an importer it would be for Customs Authorities to establish the said charge by acceptable evidence. What is to be noted however is that all the decisions cited relate to decisions taken in adjudication proceedings. In this case the petitioner has not replied to the show cause notice which admittedly was issued to the petitioner. Therefore the stage of establishment of charge of misdeclaration has not yet arisen.
16. In the cases of Mercantile Express Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Customs and Ghaneshyam Chejra v. Collector of Customs cited by the petitioner this Court has in effect held that once the Customs Authorities had accepted the value of a particular item, it becomes a precedent and subsequently it cannot be held that the valuation is not correct. In both these cases the matter had been adjudicated upon. The Court found that the Customs Authorities had accepted and were still accepting the price declared by importers in other cases, and that there was no other legally acceptable material on the basis of which the Customs Authorities could have deviated from their earlier acceptance of the price. In this case, as already observed, there has been no adjudication order till date as the petitioner has not replied to the show cause notice nor appeared before the Customs Authorities nor has the show cause notice been challenged. In any event it appears from the show cause notice that there is some material before the Customs Authorities for questioning the correctness of the invoice value as declared by the petitioner. In the circumstances it cannot be said at this stage that there was no material before the Customs Authorities to claim that the price declared by the petitioner as the value of the imported goods was incorrect.
17. The Customs Authorities have- agreed to conclude the adjudication proceedings expeditiously but have argued that pending the adjudication proceedings the goods should not be released.
18. In my view the Customs Authorities cannot oppose the release of the goods at this stage in view of the several orders passed by this Court directing release of the goods from none of which the Customs Authorities have preferred any appeal.
19. On 27th September, 1989 the Court passed the following order :-
"Considering the prima facie case and in view of the similar orders as indicated above, there will be an ad interim order to the extent that the goods imported by the petitioner should be allowed to be cleared on payment of the duties assessed on the basis of the CIF value of the goods appearing in the invoices.
It is clear that if the goods are reassessed by the respondents at a value other than the CIF value the petitioner will furnish necessary Bank Guarantee to the Collector of Customs for the difference between the duty calculated by the Assessee and the duty calculated on the basis of the CIF value of the goods. Upon furnishing such Bank guarantee the goods should be released within 41 days.
It is also made clear that the Respondents will be entitled to keep a sample of the goods for necessary testing and the Respondent authorities are also entitled to take steps by issuance of a notice, to show cause and the petitioner will give an explanation to that effect and the respondents will adjudicate the matter in accordance with law by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner but no final order will be communicated to the petitioner without the leave of the Court."
20. The Respondent Authorities did not pass any order of assessment. But by letter dated 20-10-1989 calculated that an amount of Rs. 7,43,180/- was the difference payable by the petitioner on account of duty. The Court then passed an order on 4th September 1989, an extract from the operative portion of which is as follows :-
"In effect, there is no assessment order as yet. Since the petitioner is likely to suffer unnecessary losses and damages on account of the detention of the goods and looking to all the aspects of the matter, the petitioner is, however directed to furnish a bank guarantee to the tune of 50% of the calculated amount without prejudice and to furnish a personal bond for the remaining amount. The goods must be released upon furnishing the bank guarantee and the bond accordingly."
21. The petitioner moved an application for review of the order dated 4-12-1989.
22. An interim order was passed on the review application to the following effect :-
"It is submitted that pending for the order the petitioner will not take the release of the goods in terms of the order dated December 4,1989. Instead the goods may be stored in the Bonded Warehouse by the Customs Authority by Tuesday next under Section 49 of the Customs Act. Such submission is not opposed by the Respondents."
23. On 19-12-1989 the seizure under Section 110 was withdrawn. The goods, however, were not removed to the Bonded Warehouse. On 21-12-1989 at the instance of the petitioner the Director of Revenue Intelligence and the Port Authorities were added as party respondents to the writ petition. The Court then passed the following order on 21-12-1989:-
"It is made clear that the order dated 15th December 1989 shall be carried out by storing the goods in a bonded warehouse. The clearing agent of the petitioner will take all effective steps for removal of the goods for the purpose of storing and the Customs Authorities and D.R.I. will not raise any objection and such removal will be subject to the ultimate result of the writ petition."
24. Up to 29th January, 1990 the order dated 21-12-1989 was not carried out although, according to the petitioner it had taken all steps to store the goods on 26-12-1989. The Court then passed an order on 29th January, 1990 to the following effect :-
"It is made clear that the goods, if not already placed in the bonded warehouse, must be kept in the bonded warehouse by 1st February, 1990 by the Customs Authorities without prejudice as per order dated 21-12-1989."
25. On 2-2-1990, as already noted, the Court directed the warehousing of the goods. This order was appealed from by the Port Authorities and a stay obtained. This brings us to the question of demurrage. The petitioner has contended::
(1) In spite of various orders from Court the Customs Authorities failed to release the goods and because of their delay the goods have incurred demurrage through no fault of the petitioner and therefore, the Customs Authorities are liable to bear the entire demurrage.
(2) The port authorities having passed an order under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, any demurrage incurred in respect of the goods falls on them.
(3) The port authorities having claimed and exercised lien in respect of the goods are not entitled to claim any demurrage in respect of the goods.
In connection with its claim against the Customs Authorities, reliance has been placed by the petitioner on the following decisions :-
(i) Padam Kumar Agarwalla v. The Additional Collector of Customs, Calcutta - AIR (1972) SC 542.
(ii) National Industries v. Assistant Collector of Customs - .
(iii) S.A. International v. Collector of Customs - 1988 (36) E.L.T. (Cal.).
(iv) Metal Distributors Ltd. v. Union of India - ,
(v) Priyanka Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India - .
26. In connection with its contention that once goods are subjected to a lien the person claiming such lien cannot claim demurrage, the petitioner has relied upon :-
(i) An unreported judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Collector of Customs v. Kajaria Export [FMAT 1674 and 1694 of 1985, dated 30-8-1985].
(ii) Halsbury's Laws of England (4th edition) Vol. 28 para 554 and vol. 2 para 1549.
27. On behalf of the Customs Authorities it has been contended :-
(1) The matter can only be decided in a suit. There was no evidence of any negligence on the part of the Customs Authority.
(2) The goods were detained under the provisions of Section 110 of the Act. This detention was not challenged.
(3) Delay in removal of the goods was attributable to the petitioner who did not pay the port charges before removal of the goods to the Customs warehouse under Section 49.
(4) Under Section 155 of the Customs Act, 1962 no action could be taken against the Customs Authorities for any loss suffered by the petitioner unless it was proved that the action of the Authorities was mala fide. There was no proof of mala fides in this case.
(5) The Customs authorities are agreeable to issue detention and wharf rent exemption certificates for the period that the goods were detained i.e. upto 19-12-1989.
28. The Trustees of the Port of Calcutta have contended :-
(1) The Port Authority was entitled in law to the payment of its port charges for the period during which the goods remained at the port premises beyond the free period of three working days. Reliance has been placed on the following cases in this connection :-
(i) Padam Kumar Agarwalla v. The Additional Collector of Customs, Calcutta - AIR (1972) SC 542.
(ii) The Trustees of the Port of Madras v. Aminchand Pyarelal and Ors. - .
(iii) The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Indian Goods Supplying Co. .
(2) There is a distinction between a common law lien and a statutory lien. The Division Bench in Kajaria's case (supra) did not decide the case on this point. There was no bar to a lien holder charging rent for the period that the goods were detained in exercise of the lien. Reliance has been placed on Pollock & Mulla's Sale of Goods (5th Edn.) p. 286.
(3) In any event the goods were not detained in exercise of the lien. Enforcement of a lien by sale could take place only after the goods had been cleared by the Customs Authority.
(4) A wharf rent exemption certificate could not be issued as the Scale of Rates permitted for concessional rates for wharf rent exemption certificates issued on account of goods detained for examination involving chemical and analytical tests under Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962 and not for the ordinary process of appraisement.
29. There are two periods involved. One is the period during which the goods are under seizure by the Customs Authority and the second when the removal of the goods was objected to by the Port Trust Authorities.
30. As far as the first period is concerned as noted above the Customs Authorities are agreeable to issue a wharf rent exemption certificate. It appears from the scale of rates that such exemption certificate may be issued only if the goods have been detained for the purpose of chemical analysis under Section 17 of the Act. Section 2 of the Scale of Rates insofar as it is relevant provides :-
"Goods shall be demurrage free for three clear working days after the date of landing or the goods are made available for delivery in case of goods sold by public auction ... ... ...
... ... ...
On all goods left uncleared at the port premises demurrage is chargeable at the rates given below from the day following the expiry of the free days:
... ... ... ... ... ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description of goods Charges per Rate
for 1st 30 From 31st to From 61s
days 60th day day onwards
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
***** ***** ***** ***** *****
***** ***** ***** ***** *****
***** ***** ***** ***** *****
All other goods Tonne per 40.00 60.00 80.00
day
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Rent on goods detained in the Port by the Collector of Customs for special examination under Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962 involving chemical/analytical test other than the ordinary process of appraisement by the customs shall be remitted as under:
Extent of remission
(i) For the first 60 days 75% of the rent due
(ii) For the next 60 days (i.e. the 61st 50% of the rent due day to the 120th day)
(iii) For the subsequent period Nil.
The remission shall, however, be granted provided the detention in each case is certified by the Collector of Customs to be not attributable to any fault or negligence on the part of the importer.
(5) Rent on goods detained in the Port by the Collector of Customs for analytical test under the Drugs Control Act and/or compliance with Import Trade Control Formalities shall be remitted as under :-
Extent of remission
(i) For the first 60 days 66.2/3% of the rent due
(ii) For the next 30 days (i.e. 61st day 50% of the rent due to 90th day)
(iii) For the next 30 days (i.e. 91st day 33.1/3% of the rent due to 120 day)
(iv) For the next 30 days 25% of the rent due
(v) For the subsequent period Nil The remission shall, however, be granted provided that the detention in each case is certified by the Collector of Customs to be not attributable to any fault or negligence on the part of the importer."
The Division Bench's decision in Kajaria (supra) does not decide the point as to when the wharf rent exemption certificate should be issued.
31. In the case of Metal Distributors Ltd. (supra), and National Industries (supra) the High Courts of Bombay and Madras respectively held that the importer was entitled to the issue of the detention certificate for the period that the Customs Authorities did not clear the goods. These decisions termed on the Scale of Rates applicable in the Port of Bombay. In this case the goods have been detained by way of seizure under Section 110 of the Act. In my view a wharf rent exemption certificate cannot be issued in these circumstances.
32. The scale of rates framed under the Major Port Trusts Act as published in Notification No. 447 in the Calcutta Gazette on 8-6-1988 provides for charges on goods in part I, it is stated that the charges are "payable by Importer/Exporter/Shipowner or their Agents as the case may be".
33. Therefore in this case the liability is that of the petitioner as the importer.
34. In Trustees of the Port of Madras v. Aminchand Pyarelal (supra), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Scale of Rates framed by the Trustees of the Port of Madras. The reference to this case by the Port Authority is misconceived in view of the fact that the Scale of Rates is not the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.
35. In the case of the Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Indian Goods Supplying Co. (supra) the High Court had held that an importer whose goods are detained by the Customs Departments is entitled to take a clearance of goods without payment of demurrage during the period for which the Customs Department had detained them. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the High Court and held that :-
"The position therefore, is that even though the delay in clearing the goods was not due to the negligence of the importer for which he could be held responsible yet he cannot avoid the payment of demurrage as the rates imposed are under the authority of law the validity of which cannot be questioned. The claim cannot be resisted as there is no evidence that the delay was due to any act of the Port Trust or persons for whom the Port Trust is responsible."
36. The question is whether this liability can be shifted to the Customs Authority by the petitioner in the facts of this case. The relevant facts are:
37. Firstly uptil the order dated 27-9-1989 the Customs Authorities had detained the goods under an order issued under Section 110 of the Customs Act. This order has not been challenged in these proceedings.
38. Secondly by the order dated 27-9-1989 the Court directed the petitioner to obtain release of the goods by furnishing a Bank Guarantee for the difference between the final assessment and the provisional assessment. It is true that there was no final assessment but a 'calculation' of the liability for Customs duty. However, the order dated 27-9-1989 was clarified at the petitioner's instance on 4-12-1989. By this clarification the court directed the petitioner to obtain release of the goods after furnishing a Bank Guarantee for 50% of the calculated amount. This the petitioner did not do.
39. Thirdly, there is no evidence that the petitioner offered to pay the port charges to the Port Authority at any stage. However, in Padam Kr. Agarwal's case certain 'dal' was seized while the same was in transit through Calcutta from Nepal to third countries. The 'dal' was seized by the Customs Authorities on the ground that the 'dal' was being re-exported in contravention of the Trade and Transit Treaty entered into between India and Nepal in 1968. The Supreme Court held that there was no material on the basis of which the Customs Authorities could come to the conclusion that the 'dal' in question was not Nepalese 'dal', but was of Indian origin. Having set aside the adjudication order the Supreme Court observed :-
"This is undoubtedly a hard case. The appellant has been unlawfully deprived of the possession of his valuable goods because of the illegal action of the customs authorities and thereby he could not fulfil the terms of his contract with the Cairo firm as a result of which he must have suffered considerable loss. In addition, he cannot now take possession of the goods which were seized from him without paying the charges due to the Port Commissioners amount to more than the value of the goods themselves. It is only fair and just that the customs authorities who are responsible for this situation should bear the burden; but in this writ petition we cannot give any relief in that regard. We can only leave the matter to the good sense of the customs authorities to take the appropriate steps and avoid possible further litigation."
40. Although in that case no relief could be granted, the principle laid down is clear.
41. Similarly in the case of SA. International (supra) the Court found that the adjudication proceedings initiated by the Customs Authorities was bad. Therefore, the Court held :-
"Since the petitioner was unnecessarily fastened with the proceedings, the liability of the payment as regards the warehousing and demurrage charges cannot be imposed on the petitioner".
42. The case of Priyanka Overseas (supra) cited by the petitioner is an authority for the proposition that the department cannot take advantage of its own wrong. Following the decisions in Padam Kumar Agarwalla and S-A. International it must be therefore held that if the adjudication proceedings are decided in favour of the petitioner the Department must reimburse the petitioner for the same.
43. Finally I am of the view that the Port Authorities cannot charge any demurrage for the period subsequent to 2-2-1990. My reasons for so holding are as follows :-
(i) The general law applicable to liens is that no rent can be charged by the lien-holder for the period that the goods are detained by him in exercise of its lien. This law has been recognised and stated in Halsbury's Laws of England (Fourth Edn.) paragraph 544 in which it has been stated :-
"The holder of property the subject of a lien is not normally permitted to make any claim for the use of the place in which the property is detained, or otherwise for keeping it...."
(ii) The only difference between the statutory lien and any other type of lien is as to the circumstances of their creation. The statutory lien is created by statute. Other liens may arise under contract or equity etc. There is no difference as to the incidence of the lien. There is nothing in the Major Port Trust Act to exclude the applicability of the general principle. It is also in keeping with .common sense that if a person detains something forcibly, such person cannot claim rental for doing so.
44. No authority has been cited by the Port Authorities for holding that the incidence of a statutory lien is different from a common law lien, as far as the charging of rent is concerned by the lien holder.
45. The passage in Pollock and Mulla Sale of Goods Act relied upon by the Port Authorities was quoted in the context of whether a lien exists. The learned authors have cited the judgment of Bayley J. in New v. Swain (1828) Danson & Lloyd 193 for the purpose of illustrating that a lien could be exercised as long as goods were in the possession of the lien holder. It was in that context that Bayley J. held that even if rent is charged nevertheless, the lien holder is in law in possession of the goods. The passage reads as follows :-
"Where the owner of goods sells on credit, the buyer has a right to immediate possession; but if he suffers the goods to remain until the period of payment has elapsed, and no payment in fact is made, then the seller has a right to retain them. There is no difference in principle whether the seller charges the buyer with the rent or not; they are still in his possession."
(iii) The primary pre-requisite for the exercise of lien is possession both in law and in fact. As long as the goods were subjected to the seizure under Section 110 the Port Trust Authorities could not be said to be in legal possession of the goods. The Port Authorities' possession become absolute after the seizure was withdrawn by the Customs Authorities in December 1989, after which the Port Authorities could exercise their lien. As the Port Authorities could not participate in these proceedings prior to 2-2-1990, it would not be proper for this Court to deprive the Port Authorities of their rights which may have arisen prior to that date. In any event it was only on 2-2-1990 that the Port Authorities opposed the release of the goods on the grounds that they had a lien on the same which would be lost by removal of the goods to the warehouse under Section 49 of the Customs Act.
(iv) There is a distinction between exercise of Hen and the enforcement of a lien. The Port Authorities may not have enforced their lien by sale of the goods but there is no doubt that in preventing the goods from being removed from their custody to the warehouse they were acting in exercise of their lien.
46. Therefore, I hold that the Port Authorities are entitled to charge the demurrage for the period prior to 2-2-1990. For the reasons aforesaid I dispose of this writ petition by the following order:
It is directed :-
(i) The petitioner will submit his answer to the show cause notice dated 24-1-1990 by 1-10-1991.
(ii) The petitioner and the Customs Authority will disclose documents sought to be relied on and grant inspection (if asked for) by 8-10-1991.
(iii) The Adjudication proceedings must be completed by 29-11-1991 unless extended by mutual consent.
(iv) Pending the adjudication the petitioner will be at liberty to obtain the release of the goods subject to furnishing Bank Guarantee in favour of the Collector of Customs, Calcutta and personal bond in terms of the order dated 4-9-1989 and subject to making payment of Port charges upto 2-2-1990. Such payment will be without prejudice to the petitioner's right to recover the same from the Customs Authority as provided hereunder. The Bank Guarantee must be of a nationalised bank and must be kept renewed pending the adjudication proceedings and for fifteen days thereafter. The Bank Guarantee must contain a clause to the effect that if the bank guarantee is not renewed the Bank will of its own and forthwith deposit the entire amount with the Collector of Customs, Calcutta. Subject to the furnishing of such Bond and Bank Guarantee the goods will be released forthwith as far as the Customs Authorities and Port Authorities are concerned.
(v) If the adjudication proceedings are decided against the petitioner the Customs Authorities will be at liberty to enforce the Bond and Bank Guarantee 15 days after the order of adjudication is communicated to the petitioner and subject to any order that may be obtained by the petitioner from any higher appellate authority.
(vi) If the adjudication proceedings are decided in favour of the petitioner :-
(a) the petitioner will be at liberty to discharge the bank guarantee and bond fifteen days after the adjudication order and subject to any order that the Department may obtain from any higher appellate authority; and
(b) the Customs Authority will pay the demurrage in respect of the period of detention to the Port Authorities. If the petitioner by that time has paid the demurrage charges upto 2-2-1990 the Customs Authorities will reimburse the petitioner for the same.
47. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
48. All parties to act on a signed copy of the operative part of this judgment and order on the usual undertaking.