P&H HC Orders Release of Imported Goods Withheld Despite Customs Clearance and Detention Certificate

Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 02.10.2026

P&H HC Orders Release of Imported Goods Withheld Despite Customs Clearance and Detention Certificate

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted significant relief to M/s SAB Tera Enterprises, directing the release of two consignments of imported Low Alloy Steel Scrap that remained withheld despite completion of Customs proceedings, payment of enhanced customs duty and issuance of detention certificates.

The Division Bench held that an importer cannot be penalised for delays entirely attributable to the respondents, and that disputes among Customs authorities, the shipping line and the custodian cannot be used to deny physical delivery of imported goods after Customs formalities have been completed.

The Court further clarified that the importer would not be liable for detention charges, container detention charges, ground rent or demurrage for the period during which the goods remained detained pursuant to Customs orders, as covered by the detention certificates.

Background of the Dispute

• SAB Tera Enterprises imported two consignments of Low Alloy Steel Scrap under Bill of Entry Nos. 9494291 dated 1 January 2024 and 9515603 dated 3 January 2024. The consignments were lying at ICD-Adani, Kila Raipur, Ludhiana.
• The importer approached the High Court because, despite clearance by Customs and issuance of detention certificates, the goods were not physically released due to disputes among the respondents concerning waiver of detention/demurrage charges and issuance of delivery orders.
• The goods were initially detained by Customs on 24 January 2024 and subsequently seized on 14 March 2024 for detailed examination under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. Customs ultimately reassessed the consignments, following which the importer paid the requisite enhanced customs duty.
• After completion of the proceedings, Customs issued communications and detention certificates dated 6 May 2024, directing waiver of detention charges and demurrage for the period during which the consignments remained under Customs control. These certificates were addressed to both the shipping line and the custodian.

Importer: Detention Certificates Had Attained Finality

• The petitioner argued that despite repeated representations and service of the detention certificates, the shipping line failed to issue delivery orders, resulting in continued non-release of the goods.
• Reliance was placed on the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 (HCCAR) and the Sea Cargo Manifest and Transhipment Regulations, 2018 (SCMTR).
• The importer also submitted that the respondents had not challenged the detention certificates dated 6 May 2024 before the Appellate Authority and, therefore, the certificates had attained finality. The Court was also informed that in an identical matter, CWP No. 13014 of 2024, an appeal filed against a detention-waiver certificate had been dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 3 February 2026.

High Court Had Earlier Directed Release of Goods

• During the pendency of the writ petition, the High Court had, on 3 October 2024, directed release of the goods subject to the petitioner furnishing surety bonds equivalent to the value of the goods.
• The petitioner subsequently moved an application under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, seeking contempt proceedings over alleged non-compliance with that order and a direction for release of the imported goods.
• The shipping line maintained that detention and container charges remained payable and therefore delivery orders could not be issued. The custodian, in turn, submitted that it could not release the goods in the absence of delivery orders from the shipping line.
• The High Court found these stands “wholly untenable.”

No Rent or Demurrage for Goods Detained by Customs: High Court

• A crucial part of the judgment concerns the regulatory protection against detention and demurrage charges.
• The Court referred to Regulation 6(1)(l) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009, observing that it specifically provides that no rent or demurrage can be charged in respect of goods detained by Customs authorities.
• Similarly, the Court referred to Regulation 10(1)(l) of the Sea Cargo Manifest and Transhipment Regulations, 2018, which prohibits recovery of rent or demurrage in respect of seized or detained goods.
• The Court noted that the goods had remained under detention at the instance of the Customs Department. Once the proceedings culminated in reassessment and the importer paid the requisite duty, there was no justification for continuing to withhold physical delivery of the consignments.

Court Refers to Customs Clearance Timelines

• The Division Bench also referred to a circular/instruction dated 22 August 2006, issued by the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi Zone pursuant to an order passed in CWP-9882-2006.
• According to the judgment, the instruction contemplated the first appraisement of imported goods within 48 hours, followed by assessment within 24 hours. In the case of second appraisement, assessment was contemplated within 24 hours of filing of the Bill of Entry and examination within 48 hours.
• The instruction also contemplated that an importer should be informed in writing about the option to shift goods to a bonded warehouse under Section 49 of the Customs Act, 1962, and that failure to avail the facility could result in demurrage.
• The High Court observed that the authorities were expected to conclude proceedings within the timelines indicated in that circular. However, although the imported goods were examined on 24 January 2024, the reassessment orders were passed only on 14 March 2024. The additional duty was thereafter paid, and the detention-waiver certificate was issued on 6 May 2024, yet the consignments continued to remain unreleased.

Importer Cannot Be Penalised for Delay Attributable to Authorities

The High Court laid down the central principle in clear terms:

• “The petitioner cannot be penalized for delays which are entirely attributable to the respondents.”
• The Court further held that any inter se dispute between Customs authorities, the shipping line and the custodian cannot become a ground to deny delivery of imported goods after completion of Customs formalities.
• It characterised the conduct of the shipping line and custodian in continuing to withhold the goods despite issuance of detention certificates and repeated requests by the importer as arbitrary and unsustainable in law.

High Court Issues Mandamus for Release Within Two Weeks

• Allowing the writ petition, the Punjab and Haryana High Court issued a writ of mandamus, directing the concerned respondents to release and physically hand over the goods covered by the two Bills of Entry to SAB Tera Enterprises within two weeks from receipt of the certified copy of the order.
• The shipping line was specifically directed to issue all necessary delivery orders within three days from the date of uploading of the High Court’s order.

No Detention, Container Detention, Ground Rent or Demurrage Payable by Importer

Significantly, the Court expressly clarified that SAB Tera Enterprises would not be liable to pay:

• detention charges;
• container detention charges;
• ground rent; or
• demurrage,

for the period during which the goods remained detained under orders of Customs, as certified in the detention certificates.

• Any liability or financial dispute arising among the respondents was left to be resolved inter se in accordance with law, without burdening the importer. Other disputes among the respondents were also kept open for adjudication in appropriate proceedings.

Why the Judgment Matters for Importers

• The decision has practical significance for importers whose consignments remain stuck at ports, ICDs or other Customs areas because of disputes over detention charges after Customs proceedings have concluded.
• The judgment reinforces that once the goods have been detained at the instance of Customs and a valid detention certificate covers the relevant period, disputes among Customs, the shipping line and the custodian should not be shifted onto the importer as a condition for physical release of the goods.
• It also highlights the importance of Regulation 6(1)(l) of HCCAR, 2009 and Regulation 10(1)(l) of SCMTR, 2018 in disputes concerning rent and demurrage on goods detained or seized by Customs.

Key Takeaway

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that an importer cannot be made to suffer financially or be denied delivery of imported goods because of delays attributable to authorities or disputes between Customs, the shipping line and the custodian.

Where Customs has completed reassessment, the importer has paid the required duty and detention certificates have been issued, continued withholding of the goods on account of detention or demurrage disputes can be challenged as arbitrary.

Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

Source: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com

Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi