Introduction

The movement of goods and passengers in and out of the country is controlled by legislation, following international norms. The Customs Act, 1962 is the fundamental legislation that oversees and controls the arrival and departure of various types of vessels, products, passengers, etc., into or out of the country. The Act governs the entry and exit of ships, products, passengers, etc. All products entering or departing the nation must be disclosed to Customs at specified entry stations. The Customs Department enforces this Act and other national and international laws related to it. Importers/exporters must pay duties and follow rules encompassed in the Act.

The law allows Customs agents to inspect, arrest, sell, or dispose off seized property, and prosecute offenders. The customs authorities cannot dispose off confiscated goods until the owner has exhausted all the available remedies provided under law. However, the authorities misinterpret the confiscation as their right to sell. They should be under moral and legal obligation to notify the person whose property is confiscated before disposal. The Act covers illegal conduct and omissions, thereby prescribing departmental and court sanctions.

Absolute Prohibition

According Section 2(33) of the Act,[1] the term “Prohibited Goods” is defined as goods that are prohibited from being imported or exported under any other prevailing law, including the Customs Act.

The Export and Import Policy, established by the DGFT, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, identifies certain commodities as restricted categories for import and export. The Central Government has the authority to regulate such commodities as per Section 3 and 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act of 1992.[2]

There are certain items that are prohibited for import and export, while others are not, but necessary authorization is required for the same. For instance, a notification has been issued by the Ministry of Commerce, which requires imported products to comply with the Indian Quality Standards (IQS). To meet this requirement, exporters of these products to India must register with the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS).

Additional legislation, such as the Arms Act, Environment Protection Act, Wild Life Act, and Indian Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, may place limitations or bans on the import and export of specific goods. The commodities in question will be subject to the penal provisions of sections 111 (d) and 113 (d) of the Customs Act.[3]

Statutory Provisions Dealing with Confiscation of Goods and Conveyances:-

Sections 111 to 127 of the Customs Act cover the laws that govern the seizure of goods, conveyance, as well as the fines that are imposed for violating these restrictions. Not only does the Act contain provisions for the confiscation of items that have been illegally imported or exported, but it also includes measures for the forfeiture of commodities that were attempted to be imported or exported illegally. It allows the authorities to confiscate the following:

1. Improper Imports: Section 111 of the Act allows seizures of “improperly imported products” brought into India from outside India that do not comply with laws. Importing or attempting to import prohibited items, evading duty payment, violating foreign trade policy, providing false information, or violating rules for moving, storing, unloading, or using imported goods will result in the confiscation of the goods.[4]
2. Improper Exports: Section 113 of the Act gives specifics on commodities that are regarded ‘improperly exported items’ and are liable to forfeiture.[5]
3. Conveyance Confiscation: It comprises cases in which the mode of transportation has been used to conceal objects, or in which products have been thrown into the water in order to escape being confiscated, or in which it has failed to halt or disembark in accordance with section 106, and so on.[6]
4. Seizure of Parcels: If any items that are brought into a nation or that are attempted to be removed out of the country in a package are subject to confiscation, then the package itself and any further products that are brought in that package are also liable to seizure.[7]
5. Concealed Property Taken into Possession: Any goods (with the exception of vehicles that are utilized for transportation) that are utilized to conceal illegal products are also subject to confiscation.[8]
6. Seizure of illegal goods that were distributed with other types of commerce: Illegal goods can be confiscated even if they have undergone a change in their appearance or if they are mingled with other commodities in such a way that they cannot be differentiated from one another.[9]
7. The confiscation of revenues obtained from the sale of goods that were illegally imported: The confiscation of the money gained from the sale of goods if the person selling the items is aware of or has a reasonable belief that the commodities being sold are illegal.[10]

Penalties

A: Penalties in respect of improper importation of goods:

Section 112 of the Act specifies the implications of illegal importing of commodities.[11] The penalty levied is based on the gravity of the offence. Penalties for various offences under Section 112 are as follows:

(i) Penalties may be levied for products forbidden by the Customs Act or any other applicable law. The penalty will not exceed the value of the items or Rs.5000/-, whichever is greater.

(ii) For dutiable items, excluding restricted commodities, a penalty equal to or more than the duty intended to be evaded on those products may be levied, up to a maximum of Rs.5000/-.

(iii) If the declared worth of items exceeds their real value, a penalty shall be equal to the difference between the declared and real value, or Rs.5,000/-, whichever is greater.

(iv) If the goods fall within both (i) and (iii), the penalty will not be more than the worth of the items or the difference between the declared value and the real value, whichever is greater.

(v) If goods fall under both (ii) and (iii) categories, the penalty will not exceed the duty intended to be evaded on such products, the difference between the declared and real values, or Rs.5,000/-, whichever is higher.

B: Penalties in respect of improper exportation of goods.

 Section 114 outlines the penalties for incorrect exportation of goods.[12] The penalty levied is based on the gravity of the offence.

(i)  For products forbidden by the Customs Act or any other applicable law, the penalty may be up to three times the declared value or the value set by the Act, whichever is greater.

(ii)  For dutiable products that are not prohibited, the penalty might be up to the amount of duty evaded or Rs.5,000/-, whichever is greater.

(iii)  For any other products, the penalty can be up to the declared value or the value specified by the Customs Act, whichever is greater.

Adjudication Procedure:

Section 110 of the Act states that the proper official can seize the commodities if he has grounds to suspect that they are subject to confiscation.[13] The officer in question must satisfy himself that there is reasonable cause to believe before authorizing a valid search.[14] Section 122A of the Act requires the adjudication authority to provide a party chance to be heard if the party desires.[15] The adjudicating authority may, if sufficient cause is shown at any stage of the proceeding, grant time to the parties or any of them and adjourn the hearing for reasons to be recorded in writing; however, no such adjournment shall be granted to a party more than three times during the proceedings.

Section 123 of the Act addresses the burden of proof in specific cases.[16] When goods that fall under this section are seized under the Act on the reasonable belief that they are smuggled goods, the burden of proving that they are not smuggled goods is as follows: (a) if the seizure is made from a person’s possession, the burden lies on that person and any other person claiming ownership of the goods; (b) in any other case, the burden lies on the person claiming ownership of the seized good.[17]

The Supreme Court noted that the authority to conduct searches can be derived from Section 105 of the Act[18]. This section grants powers to search if the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs has reasonable grounds to believe that goods are subject to confiscation. Section 123 establishes the burden of proof for determining whether goods are smuggled. In this case, the burden of proof falls on the person in possession of the goods to demonstrate that they are not smuggled.[19]

Mere seizure cannot be construed to confer any authority to sell

Chapter XIV of the Custom Act discusses the process of confiscating goods and conveyances and imposing liabilities. Confiscation refers to the legal seizure of prohibited goods being imported into India or the seizure of a conveyance in Indian Customs waters for the purpose of concealing exported goods or engaging in smuggling activities.[20]

Prior to confiscation, it is necessary to initiate the process of seizure. Section 110 of the Act contains the provision that outlines the concept of seizure. This section also allows for the vacation of seizure if a show cause notice is not issued within 6 months, with the possibility of extending the period by another 6 months. In cases involving the confiscation of goods as a penalty, it is necessary to serve a show cause notice solely to the owner of the goods.[21]

The individual should be notified regarding the sale of their property, as stated in Article 300A r/w Article 14[22]. According to Article 300 A[23], individuals cannot be deprived of their property unless authorized by law. The State is only permitted to deprive a citizen of their property through the legally established procedure.[24]

The procedure for disposing of valuable commodities must meet the legal standards, including the constitutional requirements of reasonableness, fairness, and transparency. Additionally, the procedure must also safeguard the property rights recognized by the Constitution under Article 300A. The application of Section 110(1A) must align with the fundamental principles of the Constitution of India, as outlined in Articles 14 and 300A. This ensures that the department can interpret and apply the law in accordance with the basic principles of the land. [25]

In the case of Leyla Mohmoodi vs. The Additional Commissioner of Customs, the Bombay High Court declared that just seizing gold by a Customs Officer does not provide any jurisdiction or authorization to sell it.[26]

In this context, it is submitted that the Delhi High Court ruled in the case of Zhinet Banu Nazir Dadany Vs. Union of India[27] that in the event of the seizure of gold or gold ornaments/items, such goods are neither perishable nor hazardous under Section 110(1A) of the Customs Act and must be disposed of only after a notice is issued to the person from whom the gold was seized.[28] The circular underlined that the notice should be issued even if the goods have been confiscated but the owner’s appeal or legal remedies have not been exhausted.[29][30]

The department’s decision to auction confiscated property without the Tribunal’s consent during the appeal process and without alerting the appellants is a significant error.[31]

Individuals cannot have their property taken away unless it is authorized by law. It is established that Article 300A of the Constitution applies to all individuals, including juristic persons, and is not limited to citizens. The custom authorities have the authority to promptly dispose of confiscated goods in situations where the owner’s chances of a successful appeal are minimal. However, it is important to note that the owner must be compensated for the value of the goods if the order of confiscation is later overturned in an appeal or revision.[32]

Conclusion

Ultimately, the Customs Act of 1962 functions as a thorough legal structure that governs the transportation of goods and individuals. It establishes strict prohibitions on specific items and is supplemented by additional regulations found in various statutes. The adjudication procedure described in the Act ensures a fair and equitable process, providing individuals with an opportunity to present their case and establishing a burden of proof in certain instances.  It is essential to emphasize the significance of upholding individuals’ property rights, as protected by the Constitution.

The Customs Act of 1962 plays a crucial role in governing international trade. However, it is essential that its enforcement aligns with principles of fairness, reasonableness, and transparency, as dictated by the constitutional framework. Finding the right balance is essential to maintain the rule of law and protect the rights of individuals engaged in import and export activities.

Written by Shailja Mantri, 3rd year law student of Nirma University 

References:

[1] The Customs Act, 1962, § 2(33), No. 52, Acts of Parliament, 1962 (India).

[2] Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act of 1992, § 3&5 (India).

[3] The Customs Act, 1962, § 111 (d) &113 (d), No. 52, Acts of Parliament, 1962 (India).

[4] The Customs Act, 1962, § 111, No. 52, Acts of Parliament, 1962 (India).

[5] The Customs Act, 1962, § 113, No. 52, Acts of Parliament, 1962 (India).

[6] The Customs Act, 1962, § 115, No. 52, Acts of Parliament, 1962 (India).

[7] The Customs Act, 1962, § 118, No. 52, Acts of Parliament, 1962 (India).

[8] The Customs Act, 1962, § 119, No. 52, Acts of Parliament, 1962 (India).

[9] The Customs Act, 1962, § 120, No. 52, Acts of Parliament, 1962 (India).

[10] The Customs Act, 1962, § 121, No. 52, Acts of Parliament, 1962 (India).

[11] The Customs Act, 1962, § 112, No. 52, Acts of Parliament, 1962 (India).

[12] The Customs Act, 1962, § 114, No. 52, Acts of Parliament, 1962 (India).

[13] Durga Prasad v. HR. Gomes Supdt. (Prevention) Central Excise Nagpur, (1966) SCR (2) 991.

[14] State of Rajasthan v. Rehman, (1960) 1 SCR 991.

[15] The Customs Act, 1962, § 122A, No. 52, Acts of Parliament, 1962 (India).

[16] The Customs Act, 1962, § 123, No. 52, Acts of Parliament, 1962 (India).

[17] Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Siliguri v. Ratan Kumar Sethia, (2016) (335) ELT 355.

[18] The Customs Act, 1962, § 105, No. 52, Acts of Parliament, 1962 (India).

[19] UOI & ors. Etc. v. M/S Magnum Steel Ltd., (2015) SCC 444.

[20] Jena, R.C. (2018, August 28). Complete Provisions of Seizure and Confiscation under Customs Act, 1962. TaxGuru. https://taxguru.in/custom-duty/seizure-confiscation-customs-act-1962.html.

[21] Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import), ICD v. Santhosh Handloom, (2016) (5) TMI 125.

[22] INDIA CONSTI. ART. 14.

[23] INDIA CONSTI. ART. 300.

[24] Dharam Dutt v. Union of India, (2004) 1 SCC 712.

[25] State of W.B. v. Sujit Kumar Rana, (2004) 4 SCC 129.

[26] Leyla Mohmoodi v. Commr. of Customs, (2023) SCC OnLine Bom 2742.

[27] Zhinet Banu Nazir Dadany v. Union of India, (2019) SCC OnLine Del 8626.

[28] GirdharlalKalyandas Advani v. Union of India, (1992) (58) ELT 453. 

[29] Central Board of Excise and Customs, Circular No. 711/4/2006-Cus, 14.02.2006.

[30] Pashupati Nath Dhandania v. Union of India, (2014) SCC Online Cal· 4557.

[31] Kailash Ribbon Factory Ltd. v. Commr. of Customs & Central Excise, 2002 SCC OnLine Del 275.

[32] State of Gujarat vs Hazi Hussain of Junagadh, (1967) SCC 1885.

The post Navigating the Customs Act of 1962: Balancing Enforcement and Individual Rights in International Trade appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

Customs House Agents (CHA) play an essential role in facilitating the smooth clearance of goods through the customs process in India. In this article, we will discuss the role of a Customs House Agent and the prevailing Indian laws that govern their operations.

Who is a Customs House Agent?

A Customs House Agent is a person or an organization authorized by the Indian Customs Department to act as a representative of an importer or exporter in customs-related matters. The role of a CHA is to facilitate the clearance of goods through customs by completing various formalities, documentation, and other legal procedures required by the Customs Department. A CHA acts as a liaison between the importer/exporter and the Customs Department and assists in complying with the legal requirements for customs clearance.

The Customs House Agent Regulations, 2018 defines the CHA under Section 2 (d) as follows:

“Customs Broker ” means a person licensed under these regulations to act as an agent on behalf of the importer or an exporter for purposes of transaction of any business relating to the entry or departure of conveyances or the import or export of goods at any Customs Station including audit” 

Registration of Customs House Agent

The Customs House Agent Regulations, 2018, govern the registration of CHAs in India. As per the regulations, any person who wants to act as a Customs House Agent must obtain a license from the Customs Department. The license is valid for five years and can be renewed thereafter. The applicant has to provide various details, including their financial standing, previous experience, and a security deposit, to obtain the license.

Roles and responsibilities of a Customs House Agent

The primary responsibility of a CHA is to ensure that the goods are cleared through customs without any delays or hassles. A CHA performs the following tasks:

1. Documentation: A CHA is responsible for preparing and submitting all the necessary documents required for customs clearance, such as bills of entry, shipping bills, and other related documents.
2. Liaising with customs officials: A CHA acts as a liaison between the importer/exporter and the customs officials. They communicate with customs officials to ensure that all formalities are completed correctly.
3. Payment of duty: A CHA is responsible for the payment of import/export duty on behalf of the importer/exporter. They also ensure that all taxes and levies are correctly calculated and paid.
4. Examination of goods: A CHA is responsible for arranging the examination of the goods by customs officials and ensuring that the examination is carried out efficiently.
5. Transport of goods: A CHA arranges for the transport of goods from the customs warehouse to the importer/exporter’s premises.

That Section 146 of the Customs Act 1962 clearly mandates the compulsory license for doing any action or acting as a Customs House Agent which is as follows:

146. Customs house agents to be licensed.—
     1. No person shall carry on business as an agent relating to the entry or departure of a conveyance or the import or export of goods at any customs station unless such person holds a licence granted in this behalf in accordance with the regulations.2. The Board may make regulations for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this section and, in particular, such regulation may provide for—

     a.the authority by which a licence may be granted under this section and the period of validity of any such licence;

     b.the form of the licence and the fee payable therefor;

     c.the qualifications of persons who may apply for a licence and the qualifications of persons to be employed by a licensee to assist him in his work as an agent;

     d.the restrictions and conditions (including the furnishing of security by the licensee) subject to which a licence may be granted;

     e.the circumstances in which a licence may be suspended or revoked; and

     f. the appeals, if any, against an order of suspension or revocation of a licence, and the period within which such appeals shall be filed.

That the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 is passed vide Notification No. 41/2018-Customs (N.T.) dated 14th May, 2018 amended by Notification No. 08/2019-Customs (N.T.) dated 06.02.2019 and in the exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 146 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), and in supersession of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013, published vide number G.S.R. 395 (E), dated the 21st June, 2013, except as respect things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs has enacted the same to curb the menace.

That Regulation 3 of the  Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018, clearly mandates as follows: 

3. Customs Brokers to be licensed.—

No person shall carry on business as a Customs Broker relating to the entry or departure of a conveyance or the import or export of goods including work relating to audit at any Customs Station unless such person holds a license granted under these regulations:  Provided that no license under these regulations shall be required by-

a. an importer or exporter transacting any business at a Customs Station solely on his own account;

b. any employee of any person or a firm transacting business generally on behalf of such person or firm, and holding an identity card or a temporary pass issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be; and

c. an agent employed for one or more vessels or aircrafts in order solely to enter or clear such vessels or aircrafts for work incidental to his employment as such agent.  

It is also pertinent to note that Regulation 10 of the  Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018, clearly mentions the duties and obligations of Customs Brokers which are as follows:

47. Obligations of Customs Broker.—

A  Customs Broker shall — 

a. obtain an authorisation from each of the companies, firms or individuals by whom he is for the time being employed as a Customs Broker and produce such authorisation whenever required by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be;

b. transact business in the Customs Station either personally or through an authorized employee duly approved by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be;

c. not represent a client in any matter to which the Customs Broker, as a former employee of the Central Board of Indirect taxes and Customs gave personal consideration, or as to the facts of which he gained knowledge, while in Government service;

d. advise his client to comply with the provisions of the Act, other allied Acts and the rules and regulations thereof, and in case of non-compliance, shall bring the matter to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be;

e. exercise due diligence to ascertain the correctness of any information which he imparts to a client with reference to any work related to clearance of cargo or baggage;

f. not withhold information contained in any order, instruction or public notice relating to clearance of cargo or baggage issued by the Customs authorities, as the case may be, from a client who is entitled to such information;

g. promptly pay over to the Government, when due, sums received for payment of any duty, tax or other debt or obligations owing to the Government and promptly account to his client for funds received for him from the Government or received from him in excess of Governmental or other charges payable in respect of cargo or baggage on behalf of the client;

h. not procure or attempt to procure directly or indirectly, information from the Government records or other Government sources of any kind to which access is not granted by the proper officer;

i. not attempt to influence the conduct of any official of the Customs Station in any matter pending before such official or his subordinates by the use of threat, false accusation, duress or the offer of any special inducement or promise of advantage or by the bestowing of any gift or favour or other thing of value;

j. not refuse access to, conceal, remove or destroy the whole or any part of any book, paper or other record, relating to his transactions as a Customs Broker which is sought or may be sought by the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be;

k. maintain up to date records such as bill of entry, shipping bill, transhipment application, etc., all correspondence, other papers relating to his business as Customs Broker and accounts including financial transactions in an orderly and itemised manner as may be specified by the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs or the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be;

l. immediately report the loss of license granted to him to the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be;

m. discharge his duties as a Customs Broker with utmost speed and efficiency and without any delay;

n. verify correctness of Importer Exporter Code (IEC) number, Goods and Services Tax Identification Number (GSTIN),identity of his client and functioning of his client at the declared address by using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information;

o. inform any change of postal address, telephone number, e-mail etc. to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, of all Customs Stations including the concerned Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner of the Commissionerate who has granted the license immediately within two days;

p. maintain all records and accounts that are required to be maintained under these regulations and preserve for at least five years and all such records and accounts shall be made available at any time for the inspection of officers authorised for this purpose; and

q. co-operate with the Customs authorities and shall join investigations promptly in the event of an inquiry against them or their employees.

That Regulation 14 of the  Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018, clearly mentions the penalties which are as follows:

14.Revocation of license or imposition of penalty—

The Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Customs may, subject to the provisions of regulation 17, revoke the license of a Customs Broker and order for forfeiture of part or whole of security, on any of the following grounds, namely:—

a. failure to comply with any of the conditions of the bond executed by him under regulation 8;

b. failure to comply with any of the provisions of these regulations, within his jurisdiction or anywhere else;

c. commits any misconduct, whether within his jurisdiction or anywhere else which in the opinion of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Customs renders him unfit to transact any business in the Customs Station;

d. adjudicated as an insolvent;

e. of unsound mind; and

f. convicted by a competent court for an offense involving moral turpitude or otherwise.

That in Noble Agency v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai [2002 (142) E.L.T. 84 (Tri. – Mumbai) wherein a Division Bench of the CEGAT, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai has observed as follows: 

“The CHA occupies a very important position in the Custom House. The Customs procedures are complicated. The importers have to deal with a multiplicity of agencies viz. carriers, custodians like BPT as well as the Customs. The importer would find it impossible to clear his goods through these agencies without wasting valuable energy and time. The CHA is supposed to safeguard the interests of both the importers and the Customs. A lot of trust is kept in CHA by the importers/exporters as well as by the Government Agencies. To ensure appropriate discharge of such trust, the relevant regulations are framed. Regulation 14 of the CHA Licensing Regulations lists out obligations of the CHA. Any contravention of such obligations even without intent would be sufficient to invite upon the CHA the punishment listed in the Regulations.”

That in V. Prabhakaran Vs CC Chennai – 2019 (365) ELT 877 (Mad.) Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held that misuse of CHA license by lending it to unscrupulous persons for facilitating smuggling activities has to be viewed seriously. The penalty imposed in that case was upheld by the Hon’ble High Court, which is as follows: 

47. Here in the case on hand because of the attitude on the part of the appellant in lending his CHA license to a third party for usage without knowing the actual importer and the goods to be imported, is a serious issue and for the said purpose, since the appellant was admittedly get only Rs.1,000/- for each consignment, the appellant has not only misused the CHA license but also very recklessly and carelessly lend it to some unscrupulous perons for facilitating smuggling activities and therefore such act on the part of the appellant shall be viewed seriously.

That in R.S. Arunachalam Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai) was pleased to hold that CHA liable for a penalty for allowing misuse of license by lending it to unscrupulous persons and the same has happened in the present case, and it was held as follows: 

19. The licence issued to the Customs House Agent under conditions not to commit any grave offence. If action under the Regulations not sufficient for the grave offence, the Customs House Agent is liable also to be proceeded under the Customs Act. There is no legal impediment to proceed against the Customs House Agent under the Customs Act besides action under the Regulations.”

22. After appreciating the facts and evidence placed before me, I am of the view that the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shri Rama Thenna Thayalan (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. I do not find any merit in the appeals of the appellant. The impugned orders do not call for interference. The same are upheld. The appeals are dismissed.

Conclusion 

In conclusion, Customs House Agents (CHA) are important intermediaries in the smooth clearance of goods through the customs process in India. Their primary responsibility is to facilitate the clearance of goods through customs by completing various formalities, documentation, and other legal procedures required by the Customs Department. The Customs House Agent Regulations, 2018 govern the registration of CHAs in India, and they must obtain a license from the Customs Department to act as a representative of an importer or exporter in customs-related matters. CHAs must ensure that goods are cleared through customs without any delays or hassles, including documentation, liaising with customs officials, payment of duty, examination of goods, and transportation of goods. The regulations ensure that CHAs have the qualifications, restrictions, and conditions to carry out their duties, and they also lay out the circumstances in which a license may be suspended or revoked. Overall, CH As are essential to ensure that goods are efficiently and legally cleared through customs in India.

Author: Adv.Sneh R. Purohit. 

The post Subletting of CHA licence permissible under Customs Law ? appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

Introduction

The Customs Act 1962 of India provides provisions regarding the levy and collection of customs duties, prevention of smuggling and regulation of foreign trade. The Act also provides for the establishment of the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) and other authorities for the administration of the Act. It lays down the procedure for collection of customs duties, rules for goods imported and exported, and penalties for violation of its provisions. The Act also contains provisions for the prevention of smuggling and other offenses relating to customs. 

Confiscation means a lawful seizure of illegal import of prohibited goods into India for concealing exported goods or carrying smuggling of any goods. Confiscations are a way by which a Customs officer can exercise his statutory power as provided under Customs Act, 1962.                                                                

Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 has prescribed a list of goods that if brought from a place outside India, shall be liable to confiscation, and Section 113 prescribes the powers to the authorities for confiscation of improperly exported goods.  A proceeding for confiscation is one in rem rather in personam.

Absolute Confiscation and Confiscation-in-rem

Section 125 of the Act empowers the adjudicating authority to release the goods to it’s rightful owner or to the person from whose possession the goods had been seized, on payment of a redemption fine in lieu of confiscation.

The High Court of Calcutta in Commissioner Of Customs vs Uma Shankar Verma has held that where the goods are not prohibited, the authorities have no choice but to allow the option of redemption of goods on payment of fine. On the other hand, when the goods are prohibited, allowing redemption on payment of fine is wholly within the discretion of the adjudicating authority. 

Whereas, Absolute Confiscation leaves no scope for redemption of confiscated goods whereas, if goods are confiscated-in-rem, they can be redeemed through payment of the redemption fine and/or the penalty, and the applicable duty changers. 

Parameters to be taken into consideration while deciding the quantum of fine leviable in lieu of absolute confiscation

Difference between Fine and Penalty 

Action may be taken against goods is action in rem, but if ultimately the fine is paid or required to be paid by the owner of the goods, just as a penalty is paid or required to be paid by the person who has violated the law.

Difference between fine and penalty is so that in the case of fine, the punishment is imposed indirectly and in the case of penalty, the imposition is directly on the person. But in both the cases it is the non-observance of law by the person concerned which is required to be established in the first instance; and the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa, regarding the principles underlying the imposition of penalty are required to be kept in mind and duly applied, mutatis mutandis, in cases of confiscation of goods and imposition of redemption fine as well. 

Option to Pay Fine in Lieu of Confiscation

A restriction on import subject to certain conditions would operate as a prohibition if the conditions are not conformed to. There is thus all ready noted judicial authority that a prohibition will include restriction just as, in the sphere of fundamental rights, there is authority that a restriction will include prohibition as well.

The authorities should apply the provisions of Sec. 125 of the Customs Act, say a gun is imported for personal use the question of unscrupulous utilisation of the weapon does not arise. In the case of Hargovind Das K. Joshi v. Collector of Customs, the Supreme Court has held that under Sec. 125 of the Customs Act the authority can give an option to the importer to get the goods released on payment of fine. Under such circumstances both the authorities ought to have given option to the importer viz., the 2nd petitioner herein to get the goods released on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation.

It is pertinent to note that the end use should be taken into consideration when the option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation is granted under Sec. 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. The authorities under the Act may give to the owner of goods an option to pay in lieu of confiscation as ‘redemption fine’, as the officer thinks fit. It is at the stage of the fixing of the quantum of fine that the consideration of leniency and the end use should be taken into consideration.  

         Option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation is discretionary

Under Section 125 of the Customs Act, which relates to payment of fine in lieu of confiscation, the option to pay fine is discretionary in cases relating to exportations of goods prohibited under the Customs Act or any other law. In the present case, the Captain was smuggling the currency abroad at the instance of somebody else. The currency did not belong to him and he had no legitimate claim to it. Refusal to exercise discretionary power in such a case is entirely in conformity with the provision of the section. Tribunal found no reason to sustain the confiscation of the appellant’s car. The confiscation has been ordered on the ground that the appellant travelled to the Airport driving the car. This can hardly be considered as using the car during the attempt to smuggle the currency out of the country.

If Duty Was Paid Under Baggage Receipts 

Goods under seizure if covered by valid baggage receipt for their clearance Goods not liable to suffer any further duty. If the goods under seizure are covered by valid baggage receipts for their clearance under baggage, it is a common case that the goods are not liable to duty once over. 

It is for the appellant to prove and establish the genuineness of the baggage receipts produced by them before the authorities immediately after the seizure of the goods in question. Though the appellants have paid the duty levied by the authorities in pursuance of the impugned order now appealed against, in as much as the appellants have not been heard with reference to the genuineness or acceptability of the baggage receipts relied upon by them, interest of justice requires that the appellants be afforded an opportunity of being heard to prove their plea. 

Redemption Fine and Market Price 

For the purpose of determining the quantum of redemption fine market price is necessary. Proviso to sub-section (1) of Sec. 125 of the Customs Act, states that “provided” that without prejudice to the provisions of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Sec. 115, such fine shall not exceed the market price of the goods confiscated, less in the case of imported goods the duty chargeable thereon.

 Therefore, for the purpose of determining the quantum of redemption fine, the market price is necessary. Neither side could indicate what the market price during relevant period was. Requirement of determination of market price is sine qua non for determining the redemption fine under Sec. 125. In absence of the same, the fine as imposed cannot be upheld. As the Collector also, has not indicated why a fine of 100% and 50% penalty was adequate, once he accepted that the gift is a bona fide gift, the imposition of 100% fine is found to be not justified.

It is also laid down in Section 125 of the fine shall not exceed market price of the goods less duty chargeable in respect of such goods. The fine is to be paid apart from the duty and charges payable on such goods. Section 126 of the Customs, 1962 such goods shall thereupon vest in Central Government. 

“The main contention is that redemption levied for re-export in this case is without jurisdiction as Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 does not empower such a levy. The relevant portion of Section 125 reads:- “Whenever confiscation of any goods is authorised by this Act, the officer adjudicating it may, in the case of any goods the importation or exportation whereof, is prohibited under this Act and shall, in the case of any other goods give the owner of the goods, or where such owner is not known the person from whose possession or custody such goods have been seized, an option to pay in lieu of confiscation such fine as the said officer thinks fit. 

Ongoing Appeal for Concerned Goods 

Where in a case imported goods have not been confiscated by the Department and on the other hand, an option is given to the petitioner to redeem the goods for home consumption of payment of redemption fine of Rs. 2,00,000 and also on payment of duty at the appropriate rate. Therefore, the only question to be considered at this stage is whether the interest of the Revenue will be affected by directing the release of the goods before disposal of the appeal to be filed by the petitioners. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the ends of justice would be met by directing the release of the goods on certain conditions.

Distinction between “Prohibited” and “Restricted” Goods

Distinction between “prohibited” appear in Cl. (d) of Sec. 111 of the Act and the term “prohibited” occurring in sub-section (2) of Sec. 125 of the Act. Import of a number of items may be ordered to be confiscated under Cl. (d) of Sec. 111 of the Act for the reason that they were prohibited to be imported by a person who imported them. Thus if the gold in question have been imported in quantities of less than five kilograms by persons entitled to import as provided in notification, it would not be prohibited. The confiscation of gold under Cl. (d) of Sec. 111 of the Act had occurred because the import of the gold the person concerned was held to be prohibited. The prohibition referred to in sub- section (2) of Sec. 125 is an absolute prohibition. 

That is to say, it relates to goods which cannot be imported by any one. This would be of goods such as arms, ammunition, addictive substances such as drugs. The intention behind sub-section (2) of Sec. 125 is clear that import of such goods under any circumstances would cause danger to the health, welfare on morals of people as a whole. This would not be the case with regard to the goods import of which is permitted subject to certain conditions or to a certain category of persons, and which are ordered to be confiscated for the reason that the condition has not been complied with. In such a situation, since the goods could be imported on fulfilment of these conditions, release of such goods confiscated for the reason that the condition has not been fulfilled would not cause any danger or detriment to the general population as a whole. 

Conclusion 

It is of utmost importance to note that only owner or person from whom goods were seized can be called upon to pay redemption fine, Order demands duty from the Essar by invoking the provisions of Section 125(2) of the Customs Act, which is clearly inapplicable to the said applicant as under the said section it is only the owner or the person from whose possession the goods have been seized, who can be called upon to pay duty in addition to the fine imposed in lieu of confiscation of the goods. According to the impugned order, the person from whose possession the goods are seized, as referred to under Section 125, is Noble Ltd., and not Essar, which is why the option to redeem the goods on payment of fine has been given only to Noble. The demand for duty is therefore clearly misdirected.

Written by Parthvi Patel, student at United World School of Law 

The post Provisions pertaining to Confiscation and Release of Goods under the Provisions of Customs Act, 1962 appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

Introduction

The customs clearance process in India involves multiple stakeholders, including importers, exporters, customs authorities, and custodians who handle cargo at various facilities. One of the most contentious issues in this ecosystem relates to demurrage charges imposed by custodians and the circumstances under which these charges may be waived through detention certificates issued by customs authorities. This intersection of commercial obligations and administrative procedures has generated significant litigation and evolved through judicial interpretations over decades.

Demurrage charges represent a fundamental component of the cargo handling ecosystem, serving as both a revenue source for custodians and an incentive mechanism for prompt clearance of goods. However, when goods are detained by customs authorities for regulatory reasons beyond the importer’s control, questions arise regarding the fairness of imposing these charges and the legal mechanisms available for their waiver. The tension between the custodian’s right to compensation and the importer’s protection against charges arising from administrative delays has shaped the current legal framework.

The regulatory landscape governing demurrage charges and detention certificates encompasses multiple statutes, including the Customs Act 1962, various port authority acts, and contractual arrangements between custodians and cargo owners. This complex legal framework has been interpreted through numerous judicial pronouncements, creating a body of precedent that guides current practice. Understanding these principles is essential for practitioners dealing with customs clearance issues and for policymakers seeking to balance efficiency with fairness in cargo handling operations.

Legal Framework Under the Customs Act 1962

Section 45: Custodian Authorization and Responsibilities

The foundation of custodian authority in customs matters rests on Section 45 of the Customs Act 1962, which empowers the Commissioner of Customs to approve custodians for handling imported and exported goods [1]. This provision establishes the legal basis for custodians to take custody of goods at ports, airports, inland container depots, and container freight stations. The custodian’s role extends beyond mere storage to encompass responsibility for the safe custody and proper handling of goods under customs control.

Under this statutory framework, custodians acquire specific rights and obligations that create a bailment relationship with cargo owners. The custodian serves as a bailee, holding goods on behalf of importers and exporters while they complete customs formalities. This relationship carries inherent rights, including the right to reasonable compensation for services provided and the authority to retain goods until outstanding charges are settled.

The scope of custodian authority under Section 45 includes the provision of various services such as unloading, handling, storage, and delivery of goods. These services typically attract charges based on prescribed tariffs or contractual arrangements. The custodian’s authority to impose demurrage charges flows from this statutory recognition and the commercial necessity of incentivizing prompt clearance to optimize facility utilization.

Free Days Provision and Demurrage Structure

The customs regulatory framework recognizes the concept of “free days” during which goods may remain in custodian facilities without attracting demurrage charges. This period, typically ranging from three to seven days depending on the facility type and cargo nature, provides importers and exporters with reasonable time to complete customs formalities without incurring storage costs.

The free days mechanism serves multiple purposes within the customs clearance ecosystem. It allows reasonable time for document submission, duty payment, and compliance with various regulatory requirements without penalizing cargo owners. However, once this period expires, demurrage charges commence to ensure efficient utilization of limited storage capacity and to encourage prompt clearance of goods.

Demurrage rates are typically structured in ascending order, with charges increasing progressively to create stronger incentives for quick clearance. This pricing structure reflects the opportunity cost of storage space occupation and the administrative burden associated with long-term cargo storage. The escalating rate structure also serves as a deterrent against using custodian facilities as extended warehousing solutions.

Detention Certificates and Their Legal Status

Administrative Issuance and Purpose

Detention certificates represent administrative documents issued by customs authorities when goods are held for official reasons such as examination, investigation, pending documentation, or compliance verification. These certificates serve to formally acknowledge that the detention period is attributable to customs requirements rather than importer delay or non-compliance.

The issuance of detention certificates typically occurs in circumstances involving laboratory testing requirements, pending clearances from other regulatory agencies, detailed examination procedures, or adjudication proceedings. In such cases, customs authorities recognize that the detention is not due to importer fault but rather stems from administrative necessities or regulatory compliance requirements.

However, the Customs Act 1962 does not explicitly provide for the issuance of detention certificates, leading to questions about their legal status and binding effect on custodians. This statutory gap has created interpretative challenges, as detention certificates operate more as administrative practices than formally recognized legal instruments with defined consequences.

Legal Effect on Custodian Rights

The relationship between detention certificates and custodian rights has evolved through judicial interpretation rather than express statutory provision. Courts have grappled with the question of whether detention certificates issued by customs authorities can override the custodian’s contractual or statutory right to demurrage charges for services provided during the detention period.

The legal complexity arises from the distinct relationships involved: the custodian provides services under statutory authority and contractual arrangements, while the customs authority exercises regulatory powers that may result in extended cargo detention. These parallel authorities sometimes conflict when detention extends beyond free days, creating situations where importers face demurrage charges for circumstances beyond their control.

Judicial precedents have established that detention certificates do not automatically absolve importers of demurrage liability, as custodians continue to provide storage and handling services regardless of the reason for detention. However, courts have also recognized exceptional circumstances where imposing demurrage charges would be inequitable, particularly when detention results from administrative delays or irregular customs procedures.

Judicial Precedents and Interpretative Evolution

International Airports Authority of India vs Grand Slam International

The landmark decision in International Airports Authority of India vs Grand Slam International established foundational principles regarding demurrage charges and detention certificate effects [2]. This three-judge bench decision addressed the fundamental question of whether custodians remain entitled to demurrage charges when goods are detained by customs authorities for extended periods.

The Supreme Court held that custodians retain their right to demurrage charges even when detention is subsequently proven improper or illegal. The Court reasoned that custodians continue providing services during the detention period and should not bear the financial burden of administrative decisions beyond their control. This principle established that the custodian’s right to compensation for services rendered remains intact regardless of the detention’s ultimate justification, a position that continues to influence how demurrage charges and detention certificates are interpreted in practice.

The Grand Slam decision emphasized the commercial reality that custodians must maintain facilities, provide security, and ensure proper storage regardless of whether detention results from importer actions or customs requirements. The Court recognized that denying demurrage charges would effectively transfer the cost of customs administration to private custodians, creating an inequitable distribution of regulatory compliance costs.

Shipping Corporation of India vs C.L. Jain Woolen Mills: The Paradigm Shift

The subsequent decision in Shipping Corporation of India vs C.L. Jain Woolen Mills marked a significant departure from the Grand Slam precedent, introducing nuanced considerations regarding fault and liability [3]. In this case, the Supreme Court upheld a High Court ruling that absolved importers of demurrage charges when goods were held without the importer’s fault.

The Court in C.L. Jain Woolen Mills established that customs authorities should bear demurrage costs when no statutory provision exempts them from such responsibility. The decision emphasized that Section 45(2)(b) of the Customs Act 1962 does not provide customs authorities with powers to shift demurrage liability away from their administrative actions. This ruling created a framework for evaluating fault and allocating costs based on causation principles.

This judicial evolution reflected growing recognition that imposing demurrage charges on importers for administrative delays could create inequitable burdens and potentially discourage legitimate trade. The Court balanced custodian rights with importer protection, establishing that fault determination should guide liability allocation in detention scenarios.

Subsequent Judicial Clarifications

Following these foundational decisions, various High Courts and the Supreme Court have refined the principles governing demurrage liability in detention cases. Courts have generally maintained that custodians retain prima facie rights to demurrage charges while recognizing exceptional circumstances justifying waiver or alternative liability allocation.

Recent judicial trends indicate increasing scrutiny of detention reasons and duration, with courts more willing to examine whether customs actions were reasonable and necessary. This evolution reflects broader principles of administrative law requiring proportionality and reasonableness in regulatory actions that impose costs on private parties.

The judicial framework now recognizes a spectrum of scenarios, from straightforward importer delays warranting full demurrage charges to administrative errors justifying complete waiver. Courts evaluate factors including detention duration, customs procedure regularity, importer cooperation, and the availability of alternative regulatory approaches in determining appropriate liability allocation.

Contractual Framework and Bailee Rights

Bailment Relationship Under Indian Contract Act

The relationship between custodians and cargo owners fundamentally operates as a bailment under the Indian Contract Act 1872. Section 170 of this Act establishes the bailee’s lien, providing custodians with the right to retain goods until they receive appropriate compensation for services rendered [4]. This statutory lien creates a powerful enforcement mechanism for custodians seeking to recover demurrage charges.

The bailment relationship encompasses the custodian’s duty of care for goods in their custody and the corresponding right to reasonable compensation for services provided. This legal framework operates independently of customs regulatory actions, creating rights and obligations that persist regardless of administrative decisions affecting cargo detention.

The bailee’s lien under Section 170 cannot be unilaterally revoked by third-party administrative actions, including customs detention certificates. This principle ensures that custodians maintain leverage to secure payment for services while providing important protections against arbitrary interference with contractual relationships.

Commercial Considerations and Industry Practice

The practical application of demurrage charges involves complex commercial relationships among importers, custodians, shipping lines, and other stakeholders. Container detention charges from shipping lines often run parallel to custodian demurrage charges, creating cumulative cost pressures that can quickly exceed cargo values in extended detention scenarios.

Industry practices have evolved to address these commercial realities through various mechanisms including demurrage waiver policies, reduced rates for detention periods, and alternative dispute resolution procedures. Major port authorities and public sector custodians have developed structured approaches to demurrage waivers that balance revenue needs with trader relief in appropriate circumstances.

Private custodians operating at smaller facilities often lack formalized waiver policies, creating inconsistencies in treatment across different locations and facility types. This disparity has contributed to forum shopping behaviors and uneven burden distribution within the trading community.

Regulatory Framework for Cargo Handling

Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations (HCCAR) 2009

The HCCAR 2009 introduced specific provisions regarding custodian obligations and demurrage charging practices [5]. Regulation 6(1)(l) states that customs cargo service providers “subject to any other law for the time being in force shall not impose any rent or demurrage on the commodities seized, detained, or confiscated” by customs authorities.

This regulation appears to provide broad protection against demurrage charges during official detention periods. However, its interpretation requires consideration of other applicable laws, particularly the Indian Contract Act 1872, which protects bailee rights to compensation. The interaction between HCCAR provisions and contractual rights has created interpretative challenges requiring case-by-case analysis.

The regulatory framework reflects an attempt to balance custodian commercial interests with trader protection against charges arising from administrative actions. However, the practical application of these provisions requires careful analysis of specific circumstances and applicable legal frameworks beyond the HCCAR alone.

Port Trust Acts and Statutory Authority

India’s major ports operate under the Major Port Trusts Act 1963, which grants port authorities broad powers to handle cargo and impose charges for services provided. This statutory framework predates the HCCAR and establishes independent authority for port operations and charge imposition.

The Port Trust Acts provide specific authority for demurrage charges as compensation for extended cargo storage beyond normal clearance periods. This authority operates independently of customs regulatory actions and creates legally enforceable rights to charge recovery through established procedures.

Similar statutory frameworks govern other custodian entities including the Central Warehousing Corporation under the Warehousing Corporation Act 1962 and airports authority operations under relevant aviation legislation. These diverse statutory frameworks create a complex legal landscape requiring coordinated interpretation and application.

Waiver Policies and Administrative Practices

Public Sector Custodian Policies

Major public sector custodians including port authorities, Central Warehousing Corporation, and Container Corporation of India have developed structured demurrage waiver policies that provide relief in deserving cases. These policies typically allow for partial waivers up to 80% of charges in meritorious circumstances and complete waivers in exceptional situations.

The development of formal waiver policies reflects recognition that rigid application of demurrage charges can create inequitable outcomes when detention results from administrative rather than commercial factors. These policies provide structured approaches to evaluating waiver requests while maintaining revenue generation objectives.

Public sector waiver policies often incorporate factors such as detention duration, customs procedure regularity, importer compliance history, and cargo value in determining appropriate relief measures. This multifactor approach allows for nuanced decision-making that balances competing interests and promotes equitable outcomes.

Private Custodian Approaches

Private custodians operating at various facilities often lack formal waiver policies, creating inconsistent treatment of detention scenarios across different locations. Some private operators grant automatic waivers upon presentation of detention certificates, while others maintain rigid positions regardless of circumstances.

The absence of standardized approaches among private custodians creates planning difficulties for importers and exporters who cannot predict potential cost exposures across different facilities. This inconsistency also contributes to competitive distortions where facility choice may be influenced by demurrage policies rather than operational efficiency.

Industry associations and regulatory bodies have begun encouraging private custodians to develop structured waiver policies that provide appropriate relief while maintaining commercial viability. These efforts aim to create greater consistency and predictability in the application of demurrage charges across the customs clearance ecosystem.

Economic Impact and Industry Challenges

Accumulated Detention Statistics

Industry reports indicate that approximately 19,000 containers remain under detention across ports, container freight stations, and inland container depots throughout India. This massive accumulation of detained cargo represents significant economic resources locked in administrative processes and generates substantial ongoing demurrage obligations.

The detained cargo encompasses diverse categories including machinery, vehicles, electronics, textiles, precious metals, and various other commodities. Some consignments have remained under detention for decades, with neither customs authorities nor custodians maintaining complete records of all affected goods.

This detention accumulation reflects systemic inefficiencies in customs administration and clearance procedures that impose substantial costs on the trading community while blocking valuable custodian storage capacity. The economic impact extends beyond direct demurrage charges to include opportunity costs, working capital constraints, and supply chain disruptions.

Cost Escalation and Cargo Abandonment

Extended detention periods often result in demurrage charges that exceed cargo values, forcing importers to abandon goods rather than pay accumulated costs. This outcome benefits neither importers, who lose their investments, nor custodians, who must deal with unclaimed cargo disposal.

The escalating cost structure of demurrage charges, while designed to encourage prompt clearance, can become punitive when detention extends for months or years due to administrative delays. The progressive rate increases that initially serve as reasonable incentives become overwhelming burdens when applied to extended detention periods.

Cargo abandonment creates additional administrative burdens for both customs authorities and custodians, who must dispose of unclaimed goods through auction procedures while managing storage constraints. The disposal process often realizes minimal recovery compared to accumulated charges, resulting in write-offs that benefit no stakeholder.

Administrative Reforms and Future Directions

Proposed Infrastructure Solutions

The customs administration has proposed establishing dedicated storage facilities for detained, seized, and unclaimed cargo to alleviate pressure on commercial custodian facilities. The New Custom House in Mumbai has identified a 56-acre site at Wadala for constructing specialized warehouses to house long-term detained cargo.

This infrastructure approach would separate commercial cargo handling from administrative storage requirements, allowing custodians to focus on facilitating trade rather than managing long-term government storage needs. The dedicated facilities would also enable more efficient processing of detained goods and reduce accumulated demurrage burdens.

Implementation of specialized detention facilities requires coordination between customs authorities, custodians, and infrastructure development agencies to ensure appropriate design, location, and operational procedures. The success of such initiatives depends on adequate funding, proper management, and integration with existing clearance procedures.

Fast-Track Disposal Mechanisms

Regulatory authorities have recognized the need for accelerated disposal procedures for detained, seized, confiscated, unclaimed, and abandoned cargo. Fast-track mechanisms would reduce detention periods and minimize demurrage accumulation while improving cargo flow efficiency.

Proposed reforms include time-bound clearance procedures, automated processing systems, risk-based examination protocols, and streamlined adjudication processes. These measures aim to reduce administrative delays while maintaining necessary regulatory oversight and compliance verification.

The implementation of fast-track procedures requires coordination among multiple agencies involved in customs clearance, including laboratories, regulatory bodies, and enforcement agencies. Success depends on adequate resource allocation, technology deployment, and process reengineering across the entire customs ecosystem.

Digital Integration and Process Automation

Modern customs administration increasingly relies on digital systems and automated processes to improve efficiency and reduce human intervention in routine procedures. Electronic documentation, automated risk assessment, and digital payment systems can significantly reduce clearance times and detention periods.

The integration of artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies offers potential for predictive analytics that can identify high-risk consignments while expediting low-risk cargo clearance. These technological solutions can reduce subjective decision-making and improve consistency in customs procedures.

Digital integration also enables better tracking and monitoring of detained cargo, providing stakeholders with real-time information about clearance status and expected timelines. Improved transparency can facilitate better planning and reduce uncertainty for importers and exporters.

Legal Analysis and Interpretative Principles

Balancing Competing Interests

The legal framework governing demurrage charges and detention certificates must balance several competing interests including custodian revenue needs, importer protection against administrative delays, customs regulatory authority, and overall trade facilitation objectives. Achieving this balance requires nuanced application of legal principles rather than rigid rule-based approaches.

Courts have increasingly recognized that mechanical application of demurrage charges without accounting for detention circumstances linked to detention certificates can produce inequitable results that discourage legitimate trade. However, complete elimination of custodian rights would undermine commercial viability and service quality in cargo handling operations.

The evolving legal framework suggests movement toward proportionality principles that evaluate detention reasons, duration, and importer conduct in determining appropriate cost allocation. This approach allows for case-specific relief while maintaining general incentive structures for prompt cargo clearance.

Statutory Interpretation Challenges

The interaction between various statutory frameworks governing customs operations, contract law, and commercial practices creates complex interpretative challenges for courts and practitioners. The absence of express provisions addressing the effects of demurrage charges and detention certificates requires resort to general legal principles and judicial precedent

Contemporary legal interpretation increasingly emphasizes purposive approaches that consider legislative objectives and practical consequences rather than purely textual analysis. This evolution supports more flexible application of demurrage rules that considers broader policy objectives including trade facilitation and administrative efficiency.

The development of specialized commercial courts and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms offers potential for more consistent and expert interpretation of complex customs and commercial law issues. These specialized forums can develop expertise in balancing technical legal requirements with commercial practicalities.

Practical Guidance for Stakeholders

Importer and Exporter Strategies

Importers and exporters can adopt various strategies to minimize demurrage exposure and maximize prospects for waiver in detention scenarios. These include maintaining comprehensive documentation of compliance efforts, promptly engaging with customs authorities on clearance issues, and developing relationships with experienced customs brokers who understand detention procedures.

Proactive communication with custodians regarding potential detention scenarios can facilitate better understanding and potentially influence waiver decisions. Providing regular updates on clearance progress and demonstrating good faith efforts to resolve issues may support arguments for reduced charges or extended free periods.

Risk assessment and contingency planning should incorporate potential demurrage costs in detention scenarios, particularly for consignments involving specialized regulatory approvals or complex compliance requirements. This planning enables better decision-making regarding cargo insurance, supplier relationships, and clearance timing.

Custodian Best Practices

Custodians can enhance their operations by developing clear, transparent demurrage policies that provide appropriate relief while maintaining commercial viability. Written policies that specify waiver criteria and decision-making procedures create predictability for customers and reduce dispute potential.

Regular communication with importers regarding detention developments and clearance requirements can facilitate prompt resolution and reduce extended detention scenarios. Custodians who actively support customer clearance efforts may experience reduced unclaimed cargo problems and better customer relationships.

Investment in technology systems that provide real-time cargo tracking and status updates can improve customer service while reducing administrative costs associated with status inquiries and dispute resolution. These systems also provide valuable data for optimizing facility utilization and service delivery.

Legal Practitioner Considerations

Legal practitioners representing parties in demurrage disputes should thoroughly analyze the specific statutory framework applicable to the relevant custodian and facility type. Different custodian categories operate under distinct legal authorities that may affect available remedies and liability allocation.

Comprehensive factual development regarding detention circumstances, customs procedure regularity, and client compliance efforts is essential for effective advocacy in waiver applications or dispute proceedings. Documentation of timeline, communications, and procedural steps can support arguments regarding fault allocation and appropriate relief.

Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms may offer more efficient and cost-effective resolution of demurrage disputes compared to formal litigation. Mediation and arbitration procedures can provide expert evaluation of technical issues while maintaining commercial relationships among ongoing business partners.

Conclusion

The legal framework governing demurrage charges and detention certificates represents a complex intersection of statutory authority, contractual rights, and administrative practice that continues to evolve through judicial interpretation and regulatory development. The tension between custodian commercial rights and importer protection against administrative delays requires nuanced balancing that considers specific circumstances rather than mechanical rule application.

Recent trends toward more structured waiver policies, improved disposal procedures, and enhanced technological integration offer promise for reducing detention-related burdens while maintaining necessary incentive structures for efficient cargo clearance. In this context, reforms connected to demurrage charges and detention certificates play a pivotal role in ensuring that custodians remain commercially viable while importers are not unfairly penalized for administrative delays. However, success requires coordinated efforts among customs authorities, custodians, and the trading community to develop practical solutions that serve all stakeholder interests.

The future development of this legal area will likely emphasize proportionality, transparency, and efficiency in balancing competing interests while supporting India’s broader objectives of trade facilitation and economic development. Clearer judicial guidance and regulatory refinement on demurrage charges and detention certificates can provide the consistency needed to align compliance obligations with commercial viability.

Understanding these principles and their practical application remains essential for all stakeholders in the customs clearance ecosystem, from importers and exporters to custodians and legal practitioners. The continued evolution of this legal framework reflects the broader transformation of India’s trade infrastructure and regulatory approach toward greater efficiency, transparency, and stakeholder responsiveness.

References

[1] Customs Act, 1962, Section 45 – Restrictions on custody and removal of imported goods. Available at: https://www.taxmanagementindia.com/visitor/detail_act.asp?ID=1022 

[2] International Airports Authority Of India vs M/S Grand Slam International, Supreme Court, 1995. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/416033/ 

[3] Shipping Corporation Of India Limited v. C.L. Jain Woolen Mills, Supreme Court. 

[4] Indian Contract Act, 1872, Section 170 – Bailee’s lien. Available at: https://www.indiacode.nic.in/ 

[5] Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009, Regulation 6(1)(l). 

[6] Analysing the Conflict Between Detention Certificates and Right to Demurrage, NLIU CBCL, 2023. Available at: https://cbcl.nliu.ac.in/taxation/analysing-the-conflict-between-detention-certificates-and-right-to-demurrage/ 

[7] Waiver of Demurrage and Detention under Customs Regulations, SJ Exim Services, 2025. Available at: https://sjexim.services/2025/03/12/waiver-of-demurrage-and-detention-under-customs-regulations/ 

[8] Importer not liable to pay Demurrage Charges due to fault of Customs or Custodian: Delhi HC, Taxscan, 2019. Available at: https://www.taxscan.in/liability-pay-demurrage-charges-importer-except-malafide-part-customs/41511/ 

Authorized By: Dhruvil Kanabar

The post Demurrage Charges and Detention Certificates: Legal Framework, Judicial Precedents and Waiver Mechanisms in Indian Customs Law appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

Introduction

Judiciary in India is the system of courts which interpret and apply the law and settle various legal debates that citizens linger upon from time to time. The Indian Judiciary System administers a common law system which encompasses into the law of the land customs, securities and legislations. The Supreme Court is the apex court, and the last appellate in India while the High Courts are the top judicial bodies in the states controlled and managed by the Chief Justices of the state. Tribunals on the other hand are set up for meting out various administrative and tax related disputes.

Appeal

• High Courts: 

1. The decree or judgment passed by the court can be challenged on the basis of the facts of the case and the legal interpretation of the legal provisions.
2. In the cases where the party to the dispute raises any objection with respect to the territorial and pecuniary of the court passing the judgment and the decree.
3. On the basis of the failure of justice relating to the incompetence of the court.
4. In the cases where the parties to the dispute have not joined in the original suit, in such matters appeal lies against the judgment/ decree of such court.
5. Where there is a challenge to the interpretation of law which are applied by the subordinate court
6. On the grounds of any defect or error or irregularity in the legal proceedings of the case
7. In the cases where the substantial question of law exists and it is affecting the rights of the parties.

• Supreme Court:

The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court can be invoked by a certificate granted by the High Court concerned under Article 132(1), 133(1) or 134 of the Constitution in respect of any judgement, decree or final order of a High Court in both civil and criminal cases, involving substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution. Appeals also lie to the Supreme Court in civil matters if the High Court concerned certifies : (a) that the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance, and (b) that, in the opinion of the High Court, the said question needs to be decided by the Supreme Court. In criminal cases, an appeal lies to the Supreme Court if the High Court (a) has on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to death or to imprisonment for life or for a period of not less than 10 years, or (b) has withdrawn for trial before itself any case from any Court subordinate to its authority and has in such trial convicted the accused and sentenced him to death or to imprisonment for life or for a period of not less than 10 years, or (c) certified that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court. Parliament is authorised to confer on the Supreme Court any further powers to entertain and hear appeals from any judgement, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court.

The Supreme Court has also a very wide appellate jurisdiction over all Courts and Tribunals in India in as much as it may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any Court or Tribunal in the territory of India.

• Tribunals:

The Central Government shall constitute an Appellate Tribunal to be called the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal consisting of as many judicial and technical members as it thinks fit to exercise the powers and discharge the functions conferred on the Appellate Tribunal by this Act. A judicial member shall be a person who has for at least ten years held a judicial office in the territory of India or who has been a member of the Indian Legal Service and has held a post in Grade I of that service or any equivalent or higher post for at least three years, or who has been an advocate for at least ten years.

Powers

• High Courts:

1. It has the power to control over all the courts and tribunals within its jurisdiction except in the matters of Armed Forces under Article 227.
2. It has the power to withdraw a case pending before any subordinate court if it involves the substantial question of law.
3. It is a Court of Record like the Supreme Court which involves recording of judgements, proceedings etc (Article 215).
4. Under the Article 13 & 226 High Court has the power of judicial review. They have the authority to declare any law or ordinance as unconstitutional if it seems to be against the Constitution of India.
5. It can appoint the administration staff according to the need and can decide their salaries, allowance etc.
6. It issues the rules and regulations for the working of subordinate courts.

• Supreme Court:

1. Power to punish for contempt (civil or criminal) of court with simple imprisonment for 6 months or fine up to Rs. 2000. Civil contempt means wilful disobedience to any judgment. Criminal contempt means doing any act which lowers the authority of the court or causing interference in judicial proceedings.
2. Judicial review to examine the constitutionality of legislative enactments and executive orders. The grounds of review are limited by Parliamentary legislation or rules made by the Supreme Court.
3. Deciding authority regarding the election of President and Vice President.
4. Enquiring authority in the conduct and behaviour of UPSC members.
5. Withdraw cases pending before High Courts and dispose of them themselves.
6. Appointment of ad hoc judges- Article 127 states that if at any time there is a lack of quorum of Judges of Supreme Court, the CJI may with the previous consent of the President and Chief Justice of High Court, concerning request in writing the attendance of Judge of High Court duly qualified to be appointed as Judge of the Supreme Court.
7. Appointment of retired judges of the Supreme Court or High Court – Article 128 states that the CJI at any time with the previous consent of the President and the person to be so appointed can appoint any person who had previously held the office of a Judge of SC.
8. Appointment of acting Chief Justice- Article 126 states that when the office of CJI is vacant or when the Chief Justice is by reason of absence or otherwise unable to perform duties of the office, the President in such a case can appoint a Judge of the court to discharge the duties of the office.
9. Revisory Jurisdiction- The Supreme Court under Article 137 is empowered to review any judgment or order made by it with a view to removing any mistake or error that might have crept in the judgement or order.
10. Supreme Court as a Court of Record- The Supreme Court is a court of record as its decisions are of evidentiary value and cannot be questioned in any court.

• Tribunals:

1. A Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and subject to the other provisions of this Act and of any rules made by the Central Government, the Tribunal shall have power to regulate its own procedure including the fixing of places and times of its inquiry and decided whether to sit in public or in private.
2. A tribunal shall decide every application made to it as expeditiously as possible and ordinarily every application shall be decided on a perusal of documents and written representations and after hearing such oral arguments as may be advanced.
3. A Tribunal shall have, for the purposes of discharging its functions under this Act, the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), while trying a suit, in respect of the following matters, namely :

(a) Summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath;

(b) requiring the discovery and production of documents;

(c) receiving evidence on affidavits;

(d) subject to the provisions of section 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), requisitioning any public record or document or copy of such record or document from any office;

(e) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or, documents;

(f) reviewing its decisions;

(g) dismissing a representation for default or deciding it ex parte;

(h) setting aside any order of dismissal of any representation for default or any order passed by it ex parte; and

(i) any other matter which may be prescribed by the Central Government.

Limitations

• High Courts:

The limitation for filing an appeal from a sentence of death passed by court of sessions or the High Court in its original jurisdiction is 30 days and from any other sentence or order to the High Court is 60 days and to any other court is 30 days.

The period of limitation against an order of acquittal is 90 days but where appeal against such order has to be made after seeking special leave of the court, the period of limitation is 30 days.

• Supreme Court:

1. If an appeal under Section 37 is preferred against an arbitral award in arbitration less than the Specified Value, the same would be governed by Article 116 / Article 117 of the Limitation Act. Under these provisions, the limitation period is computed in the manner recorded in Table I above.
2. If an appeal under Section 37 is preferred against an arbitral award in arbitration of a dispute of the Specified Value, the appeal will be governed by Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2010(hereinafter referred as “CC”) . The limitation period provided under the CC Act being a special law would apply as compared with the Limitation Act which is a general law, as per section 29(2) of the Limitation Act. Section 13(1A) of the CC Act lays down a period of limitation of 60 days for all appeals; this would therefore be the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 37 of the A&C Act. The Supreme Court considered the judgment in Kandla Export Corpn. v. OCI Corporation, to deal with the interplay between Section 13 of the CC Act and Section 37 of the A&C Act.

• Tribunals

1. Against the Rule of Law: It can be observed that the establishment of the administrative tribunals has repudiated the concept of rule of law. Rule of law was propounded to promote equality before the law and supremacy of ordinary law over the arbitrary functioning of the government. The administrative tribunals somewhere restrict the ambit of the rule of law by providing separate laws and procedures for certain matters.
2. Lack of specified procedure: The administrative adjudicatory bodies do not have any rigid set of rules and procedures. Thus, there is a chance of violation of the principle of natural justice.
3. No prediction of future decisions: Since the administrative tribunals do not follow precedents, it is not possible to predict future decisions.
4. Scope of Arbitrariness: The civil and criminal courts work on a uniform code of procedure as prescribed under C.P.C and Crpc respectively. But the administrative tribunals have no such stringent procedure. They are allowed to make their own procedure which may lead to arbitrariness in the functioning of these tribunals.
5. Absence of legal expertise: It is not necessary that the members of the administrative tribunals must belong to a legal background. They may be the experts of different fields but not essentially trained in judicial work. Therefore, they may lack the required legal expertise which is an indispensable part of resolving disputes.

       Submitted by

        Roshi Surele

The post Powers & Limitation of Tribunal & Appeal To High Court & Supreme Court. appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

Introduction

On 4th April 2015, the Commerce and Industry Minister, Govt of India, Mrs. Nirmala Sita Raman, introduced the Indian Foreign Trade Policy for 2015-20. The Foreign Trade Policy has been formulated for five years. It appears into, regulates and legal guidelines are enacted for the export and import of goods. The creation of the Foreign Trade Policy is incorporated with the imaginative and prescient of the Honorable Prime Minister of India on ‘Make in India’, ‘Digital India’, and ‘Skills India’. The government of India has formulated the trade policy as a way to improve ‘ease of doing business’.
Improving export and import will assist India in being a contributor to the prevailing technology of globalization. The approved framework of Foreign Trade Policy is Directorates General of Foreign Trade. The state of the external environment and new features of the global trading landscape such as mega regional agreements and global value chains will profoundly affect India’s trade. Aim is to help various sectors of the Indian economy to gain global competitiveness.

Legal framework

According to Section 5 of the Foreign Trade ( Development and Regulations) Act 1992, the government of India can from time to time formulate laws relating to Foreign Trade Policy. This section also specifies that the laws made should have special provisions or exceptions should be included for Special Economic Zones. The provisions below Foreign Trade Policy are unique provisions and could be successful over well known ones. If any benefits were provided earlier than the date of graduation of the Foreign Trade Policy then it’ll continue.

● DGFT has been assisting the clients by giving them time schedules. It has also provided email id, phone number, a website for the stakeholders to communicate and to facilitate  them. Further, help desks have also been established in different zones. DGFT has also been modernized by allowing an online complaint system. The online complaint system allows users to register complaints and see its status.

● The trading, export, import, development, multilateral and bilateral relations via way of means of the Special Economic Zone is also sorted by the Department.

Trade facilitation

• A system of online complaint has also been formulated wherein the exporters can file online applications who are seeking to get their issues resolved. The Export Data Processing and Monitoring System has been started by the Reserve Bank of India  to look into the exports.

• The Foreign national trading policy additionally introduced the construct of city of Export Excellence that acknowledges cities that have a production of quite Rs. 750 Crore. These cities have the potential to extend quality exports from the country. These cities that are notified are being supplied with financial backing from the Central Government.

•The policy has also resulted in the formation of a National Committee for Trade Facilitation. This Committee was established in response to India’s signature on the World Trade Organization’s Trade Facilitation Agreement. The Committee is in charge of putting the terms of the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement into action.

World Trade Organization

In 2018, the United States filed a complaint against India at the world trade center The criticism become concerning the guidelines which might be selling exports within side the country. The United States claimed that guidelines to sell exports are in opposition to the guidelines of the World Trade Centre. The United States claimed that the export subsidies can not be maintained and is in opposition to the guidelines of WTO. A document become made after analyzing the criticism by the WTO Panel on this
issue which stated that the provisions of Foreign Policy of India which might be promoting export by making use of export subsidiaries are illegal.

The report launched through the WTO panel may affect the export market of India. These promotional export subsidiaries had usually been a stimulant for the exports. The subsidiaries have supported exports by decreasing the price of exports. This may highly effect the diverse exporting sectors, given the modern scenario of the awful monetary fitness of the us of a and uncertainty because of the change struggle fare of America and China.

Ceasing the advancement of trade might lead to deplorable results within the trade and moment showcase of India. Hence, the nation ought to point to define such remote approaches which are congruent with the approaches of the World Exchange Organization. The Government ought to carefully define.

Objectives of the Foreign Trade Policy in India

1. To enable substantial growth in exports from India and import to India to boost the economy.
2. To improve the balance of payment and trade.
3. To increase the technological ability for manufacturing and cost-effectiveness of enterprise and services, thereby enhancing their aggressive electricity in evaluation to different countries, and to motivate the accomplishment of internationally commonplace requirements of quality.
4. Creation of opportunities by engaging in good and ethical practices.
5.  To ensure long-term growth by providing access to critical raw materials, as well as other components, consumables, and capital goods needed to boost production on and deliver efficient services.
6. provide buyers or clients with high-quality goods and services at globally
competitive rates and quality. ‘Canalization’- an important feature of Foreign
Trade Policy under which specific classes of goods can be imported only by
designated agencies.
7. Creation of opportunities by engaging in good and ethical practices.
8. Establishing the Advance Licensing System for foreign products required for producing numerous products for export. associate degree Advance License is issued by the board General of Foreign Trade to permit nontaxable import of inputs, that ar physically integrated with the export product
9. Allow the import of technology and equipment’s which may help in achieving better international standards of quality and reduce the cost of production.
10. Accelerating the economy’s transition from low-  to high-level economic activities by transforming it into a globally focused and thriving economy

Simplification and Merger of Reward Schemes:

1: Merchandise Exports from India Scheme(MEIS)

The earlier 5 schemes for worthwhile products exports with exceptional styles of responsibility script with various conditions (sector precise or real consumer only) connected to their use, namely, Focus Product Scheme, Market Linked Focus Product Scheme, Focus Market Scheme, Agri – Infrastructure Incentive Scrip and VKGUY have now been changed with the aid of using a unmarried scheme referred to as Merchandise Export from India Scheme (MEIS). It is critical to be aware that there could
be no conditionality connected to the scrips issued beneathneath the scheme. For supply of rewards beneathneath MEIS, the international locations had been classified into 3 groups, while the costs of rewards beneathneath MEIS could variety from 2% to 5%. Notified items exported to notified markets could be rewarded on realized FOB price of exports in loose overseas exchange. The debits closer to simple customs responsibility and further responsibility of customs/ excise responsibility/carrier tax could additionally be allowed adjustment as responsibility drawback/CENVAT credit, as in keeping with as per the department of revenue rule.

The basic objective of Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) is to offset infrastructural inefficiencies and associated costs involved in export of goods/products, which are produced/manufactured in India, especially those having high export intensity, employment potential and thereby enhancing India’s export competitiveness.

Service Exports from India Scheme (SEIS)

Service Exports from India Scheme (SEIS) has changed in advance Served from India Scheme (SFIS) and pursuits to inspire export of notified offerings from India. It applies to ‘provider vendors placed in India’ as a substitute of ‘Indian provider vendors’. Service vendors placed in India covers exporters who’re presenting offerings from India, irrespective of the charter or profile. Under the brand new policy, the advantage is likewise prolonged to airport operations and floor dealing with offerings protecting seventy seven offerings. Under SEIS, the chosen offerings might be rewarded on the
fees of 3% on internet forex earned. The fee of praise beneathneath SEIS might be primarily based totally on internet forex earned. The praise issued as responsibility credit score script might be freely transferable and usable for all kinds of items and provider tax debits on procurement of offerings/items. Debits might be eligible for CENVAT credit score or drawback.

Conclusion

With the help of foreign trade policies, a country can lead to equality of pricing to ensure a stable demand and supply situation within the economy. Foreign trade policy also enables a nation to import certain products at the time of a natural calamity and therefore manage scarcity when demand is high by providing better quality and quantity of goods. It also assists in raising the standard of living and making commodities available at a lower cost. Therefore, the Foreign Trade Policy in India is a complete policy to enhance the position of India in the international market and create benefits
for all.

India has also been one of the most sought after foreign investment destinations. The MEIS and SEIS are great initiatives to enhance the export of goods and services and has consolidated the various schemes which existed before.

By Sneha Samarpita

The post Analysis of Foreign Trade policy (2015-2020) appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.