Page 205 - ELT_1st September 2020_Vol 373_Part 5

2020 ] QATAR AIRWAYS v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (AIR), CHENNAI 643

of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Jai Hind Oil Mills Company, (1987) 1 SCC 648 =
1987 (30) E.L.T. 633 (S.C.). Same extracted hereunder from the said judgment :-
Paragraph 2 of the said notice sets out the circumstances under which a
regular detention certificate could be issued by the Customs House for fa-
cilitating the importers to get remission of demurrage charges. They are as
under :-
“(a) Where the goods are detained by Customs House for bona fide
operation of import control formalities without any default on the
part of the importers.
(b) Where the goods have been released on caution (a regular de-
tention certificate and not a recommendatory letter).
(c) Where the goods are detained [by] the Custom House pending
test report and the facility of clearance against provisional assess-
ment has not been allowed. Such detention certificates will be issued
on merits for the period for which the goods were detained for the
purpose.
(d) Where the goods are detained for PHO formalities, the certifi-
cate will cover the period stretching between the date of drawal of
the sample by the PHO and the date of his test results, and
(e) In cases where samples have been drawn from the imported
consignments by the Assistant Drugs Controller for ensuring com-
pliance with the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and
where the Assistant Drugs Controller is of the opinion that release
cannot be allowed against a letter of guarantee pending tests.”
8. The said public notice also states that detention certificates will not be is-
sued in the following types of cases :-
“(a) Time taken by the Custom House Laboratory for analyti-
cal/chemical testing of samples drawn from the consignments,
since the facility of clearing the goods on bond in terms of Section
18 already exists.
(b) Samples drawn from the imported consignments by the Assis-
tant Drugs Controller for ensuring compliance with the provisions
of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and for being forwarded to the
Central Drugs Laboratory, Calcutta, as the importers can avail of
the facility of clearing the goods against letters of guarantee and
need not wait till the receipt of the test report.
(c) The period taken for mutilation of woollen rags in the docks.
(d) Cases where goods are detained in the ordinary course of ap-
praisement such as for determination of the tariff classification of
goods or their assessable value in terms of Section 14 of the Cus-
toms Act.”
67. Regulation 6(1)(l) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regu-
lations, 2009 mandates that the Customs Cargo Service provider shall subject to
any other law for the time being in force, shall not charge any rent or demurrage
on the goods seized or detained or confiscated by the Superintendent of Customs
or Appraiser or Inspector of Customs or Preventive officer or examining officer,
as the case may be.
68. As per Regulation 6(1)(l) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Area
Regulations, 2009, a Customs Cargo Service Provider which includes the Airport
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st September 2020  205