WHARFAGE IN CUSTOMS

1. Asian Food Industries v. Commissioner of Customs, 2018 SCC OnLine Guj 4547
https://www.scconline.com/Members/NoteView.aspx?
enc=SlRYVC05MDAwMTMwOTg2JiYmJiY0MCYmJiYmU2VhcmNoJiYmJiZmdWxs
c2NyZWVuJiYmJiZ0cnVlJiYmJiZsZXZ5IG9mIGFyYml0cmFyeSBjaGFyZ2VzIGJ5IG
N1c3RvbXMmJiYmJkFsbFdvcmRzJiYmJiZnU2VhcmNoJiYmJiZmYWxzZQ==
Petitioner was exporting 87 containers which were detained by the Commissioner of
Customs for examining owing to the notification dated 27.06.2006 which added some
items to the list of barred items for export but nothing such was found and a clearance
certificate was issued but the petitioner due to the mounting of demurrage charges, took
back his goods and sold them in the local market. Now, he is being asked for the
demurrage charges. Court ordered the Director General, Ministry of Commerce and
Industry to pay the demurrage charges to the shipping agencies and absolves the
Petitioner, i.e., the exporter from the liability of paying the same.

2. Union of India v. Sanjeev Woolen Mills, (1998) 9 SCC 647

http://www.scconline.com/DocumentLink/XN716FWy
Cited in ‘Asian Food Industries v. Commissioner of Customs’; here, the detention of the
goods by the customs authority was held illegal by the Delhi High Court and thus, they
were directed to pay the demurrage amount. Main difference in the facts of ‘Union of
India v. Sanjeev Woolen Mills’ and Bishnoi Fashion Case is that in the former, the
customs authorities themselves gave an undertaking before the High Court that in the
event the goods are found to be synthetic waste (as was claimed by the exporter), then the
Revenue itself would bear the entire demurrage and container charges.