Deadlocked at the Port: High Court Facilitates Cargo Release After Months of Stagnation

The High Court of Delhi has intervened in a dispute involving M/S Manav Minerals Private Limited and the Customs Department, signaling a practical path forward for the release of an imported consignment of talcum powder that had been languishing under departmental detention.

A Case of "Suspicious" Detention

The petitioner, M/S Manav Minerals, had sought the intervention of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to secure the release of imported goods covered under Bill of Entry No. 3415109. The core of the grievance rested on the prolonged detention of the cargo by the Customs Department. Despite the issuance of a 'No Objection Certificate' (NOC) by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs in Mundra, Gujarat, on October 30, 2025, the goods remained held up, incurring significant demurrage and port rent charges that the petitioner argued should not be their burden.

Arguments from the Docks and the Bar

During the proceedings, the petitioner maintained that the goods had been cleared following all requisite customs procedures. They relied on a letter dated November 3, 2025, which suggested the cargo should be liberated without the burden of rent or demurrage—at least until the date of the NOC.

Conversely, respondents raised significant questions of maintainability, arguing that the High Court of Delhi lacked territorial jurisdiction because the consignment, the investigation by the Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch (SIIB), and the shipping lines involved were all centered at the Mundra Port in Gujarat. Furthermore, respondents argued that while the initial detention was the subject of the dispute, the petitioner was nonetheless obligated to cover charges accrued beyond the point where the NOC was granted.

Key Observations

The bench, comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain, navigated the impasse by focusing on the practical necessity of clearing the goods while acknowledging the ongoing dispute over the validity of charges. Several observations formed the heart of the court's stance:

• "In view of the above, prima facie the subject consignment is liable to be released without payment of any rent or demurrage charges till the issuance of the NOC."
• "Moreover, the Petitioner cannot be blamed for the further delay in the release as well."
• "The Petitioner is at liberty to get the consignment released after paying the detention and demurrage charges to Respondent No.6 to 7, for the period post 30th October, 2025."

The Verdict: A Balanced Resolution

Ultimately, the Court moved to dispose of the petition by balancing the petitioner’s need for commerce with the economic realities of the Port. By allowing the petitioner to clear their cargo upon satisfying the demurrage liabilities incurred after October 30, 2025, the court provided an immediate solution to the storage crisis.

Significantly, the Court explicitly noted that the larger legal question regarding the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court over matters essentially grounded in Gujarat—a point of contention raised by the Respondents—remains open. This ensures that while the specific commercial grievance is addressed, the precedent for jurisdictional boundaries in customs litigation remains preserved for future adjudications. For importers, the ruling serves as a vital reminder that while the path to clearance can be fraught with administrative delays, courts are increasingly focused on minimizing business disruptions through pragmatic, time-bound conditional relief.