JUDGMENT

R.M. Sahai, J.

1. International Airports Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as IAAI) and the Central Warehousing Corporation, Container Freight Station, Patparganj (in brief CWC) obtained leave of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India against direction issued by the High Court of Delhi for release of imported goods without payment of any demurrage charges for the period for which detention certificate had been issued by the Customs Authorities.

2. What persuaded the High Court to take this view in favour of the respondents was founded on construction of Section 45(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 (Act for short) and issuance of detention certificate by the Customs Authorities. What is the nature of these certificates? Whether they are binding on the IAAI? Is there any conflict in the Public Notice issued by the Customs Authorities and Regulations framed by the IAAI, are some of the questions which arises for consideration in these appeals. But before adverting to these issues facts in brief may be mentioned.

3. In Appeal No. 798 of 1992 the respondent filed with the Customs Authorities bill of entry on cargo terminal along with all documents to seek clearance of goods, namely, printing papers etc. of CIF value of Rs. 17,846.00. The valuation given in the bill of entry was objected to by Additional Collector of Customs, and he passed an order on 8th November 1989 enhancing the value of the goods and directing confiscation of the same. In appeal the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi quashed the order of the Additional Collector of Customs on 3rd July 1990. Since the order enhancing the valuation and directing confiscation was quashed the Collector of Customs issued detention certificate from 7.8.1989 to 12.7.1990. It was mentioned in the certificate that the detention was due to case of the respondent pending before the Collector and in the appeal. The respondent thereupon applied for waiver of the demurrage charged for the relevant period. On 18th December 1990 it presented an application showing as out of charge of the Customs. But on 9th January 1991 it was informed by the appellant that the total liability of the demurrage charges was Rs. 1,49,100 out of which Rs. 79, 364 was waived for the period of detention that is, 7.8.89 to 12.7.90. The appellant further condoned the period from 18.12.90 to 9.1.91 as the application for waiver was received and processed during this period. According to the appellant the respondent was liable to pay Rs. 69,736 as on 9.1.91 and thereafter the liability was Rs. 300 per package per week or part thereof. The liability of the respondent till 12.6.1991 was determined at Rs. 1.15,936.

4. In Appeal No. 4227 of 1992 the respondent imported a consignment of wool waste. It was seized by the Collector of Customs Under Section 110 of the Act as on sample examination it appeared to be synthetic waste which was restricted item which could not be imported without a valid import licence. The respondent was issued notice to show cause why the goods of declared value of Rs. 1,93,237 should not be confiscated Under Section 111(d) and 111(m) of the Act and action Under Section 112 be taken. The explanation of the respondent that test being based on sample drawn on 10 examination was not correct nor did it represent test of entire consignment, was not accepted. And the respondent was given an option to clear the goods on payment of Rs. 50.000 as fine and in addition penalty of Rs. 1,00,000. In appeal on test of 71 of consignment by the chemical examiner it was held that consignment was wool waste. Consequently the appeal was allowed. And in pursuance of the order of the Tribunal the Additional Collector of Customs passed the order dated 17th December 1990 directing release of the goods. On 24.1.1991 the Assistant Collector sent a letter to the appellant that since the goods of the respondent were seized by Customs Department on 29th April 1986 and th