Judgment :- The Order of the Court is as follows :- In all these cases, the issue involved is one and the same and so it is dealt with in the common order. 2. The petitioners are doing business in various metal items and other allied products. In the course of their business they imported Brass Ash Dross. On arrival of the vessel at Madras Port, the petitioners furnished all the necessary papers for clearance of the goods. The Officers of the second respondent refused to permit the petitioners to clear the goods alleging that they are undervalued in the invoice. They opened the consignment and inspected the contents. They took samples and forwarded the same for testing. They further directed to detain the goods. Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioners on various dates as to why the price should not be enhanced as determined, and why the goods should not be confiscated under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and also subject the petitioners for penalty under the Customs Act. Except the petitioner in W.P. No. 12414 of 1939, the other petitioners sent a detailed reply to the show cause notice. In the said reply the petitioners have stated that there was not invoice. 3. Pursuant to the show cause notice a personal hearing was held and ultimately on 10-7-1989 the adjudication order was passed by the second respondent and the same was signed by the proper officer on 24-8-1989, on which date the petitioners received the same. In the said order, the second respondent accepting the case of the petitioners held that the department had made a mistake in taking the prime copper price at the time of the shipment instead of going price of copper at the time of the petitioners contract and the calculation sheet relied on by the department is mistake, and in view of the above findings, the second respondent dropped the proceedings regarding mis-declaration as well as penal action. However, the second respondent enhanced the value of the goods marginally by adopting certain violation procedures. On receipt of the copy of the adjudication order, the petitioners approached the second respondent to issue detention certificate so as to enable them to get waiver from levy of demurrage by the first respondent. However, the second respondent enhanced the value of the goods marginally by adopting certain violation procedures. On receipt of the copy of the adjudication order, the petitioners approached the second respondent to issue detention certificate so as to enable them to get waiver from levy of demurrage by the first respondent. After appreciating the fact that the non-clearance of the goods from the Port is not due to the negligence of the petitioners, the second respondent issued detention certificates to the effect that the goods were detained for the purpose of evaluating the same under Section 17(3) and (4) of the Customs Act, during the period mentioned in the respective detention certificates. 4. It is not in dispute that the first respondent permitted waiver from payment of demurrage for the period during which the goods were under the custody of the department for the purpose of analytical test. But, unfortunately, when the petitioners produced the detention certificates and sought for waiver of demurrage for the period mentioned in the said certificates, the first respondent rejected the same in the order dated 23-3-1989. In the said order it is stated as follows :- "No waiver is permissible for the period of detention under Section 17(3) and (4) of the Customs Act." No other reason is given in the said order. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioners have filed the above writ petitions. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the goods were detained by the second respondent for the purpose of evaluating the same under Section 17(3) and (4) of the Customs Act, during the relevant period. It is not due to the negligence of the petitioners but at the instance of the second respondent. After appreciating the said position the second respondent issued detention certificates. The learned counsel on this basis has submitted that once the detention certificate is issued, the obligation is on the part of the first respondent to give waiver of demurrage of the said period especially Rule 13(a) of the Act provides such power. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent relying on the decision in Port of Bombay v. I.G. Supplying Co. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent relying on the decision in Port of Bombay v. I.G. Supplying Co. has submitted that even if the delay in clearing the goods, is not due to the negligence of the petitioners, they are liable to pay demurrage, and so they cannot rely on the detention certificates issued by the second respondent for the purpose of claiming waiver. 7. Before going into the rival content that has been raised by the learned counsel on both sides, it is necessary to set out the relevant provisions relating to the issue in question. 8. Rule 13(a) of the Scale of Rates of Madras Port Trust Board empowers the Port Trust to give waiver with respect to the waiver of demurrage, which reads as follows :- "13.The following free periods are allowed in addition to the free periods applicable as per description of goods :- (a)Periods during which goods are detained by the Collector of Customs for examination under Section 17(3) and (4) and for chemical test under Section 144 of the Customs Act, 1962 other than the ordinary processes of appraisement and certified by the Collector of Customs to be not attributable to any fault or negligence on the part of the Importers plus one working day. The Customs holidays will also be treated as free days in addition.' From the above-said rules, dealing with the Scales of Rates of demurrage charges specifically provides for payment of demurrage at a concessional rate if the goods detained by the Customs Authorities for customs purposes. The said rule specifically says that periods during which goods are detained by the Collector of Customs for examination under Section 17(3) and (4) of the Customs Act, 1975 and for chemical test and if detention certificate is issued by the Collector of Customs, no demurrage need be payable during that period treating the said period as free period. In the present case, the detention certificates has been issued which will clearly prove that the goods were not cleared not due to the negligence of the petitioners but only at the instance of the second respondent. That being the case, the case of the petitioners will squarely comes under Rule 15(a) of the Scale of Rates of Madras Port Trust, framed under Section 42 of the Madras Port Trust Act. 9. That being the case, the case of the petitioners will squarely comes under Rule 15(a) of the Scale of Rates of Madras Port Trust, framed under Section 42 of the Madras Port Trust Act. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent has relied on the decision of the Apex Court reported in cited supra, on the basis of the facts of that case, wherein it is held as follows :-" The position, therefore, is that even though the delay in clearing the goods was not due to the negligence of the importer for which he could be held responsible yet he cannot avoid the payment of demurrage as the rates imposed are under the authority of law the validity of which cannot be questioned. The claim cannot be resisted as there is no evidence that the delay was due to any act of the Port Trust or persons from whom the Port Trust is responsible. "In that case, the waiver was claimed for the period during which the goods were detained for completing the Import Trade Control formalities by the Customs Authorities. From the facts narrated in the above said decision, I am able to see that there is no provision in the Scale of Rates of Bombay Port Trust to permit waiver for the period during which the goods were detained for the completing of the Trade Control formalities by the Customs Authorities. In that circumstances the Apex Court held that even though there is no negligence on the part of the importer in not clearing the goods, he cannot claim waiver. So, that decision cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case. As stated earlier, in the present case the waiver that has been claimed by the petitioners is contemplated under Rule 13(a)(b) of the Scale of Rates of the Madras Port Trust. 10. The procedure of issuing detention certificate itself is formulated only to enable the importer to get waiver on the basis that the goods were detained only at the instance of the Customs Authorities. 10. The procedure of issuing detention certificate itself is formulated only to enable the importer to get waiver on the basis that the goods were detained only at the instance of the Customs Authorities. The Apex Court in Board of The Port Bombay v. Jai Hind Oil Mills, while dealing with the scope of detention certificate and the binding force of the same against the Port Trust has held as follows :-" It is, however, to be observed that before compelling the Customs Authorities to issue a detention certificate, the High Court should have issued notice to the Port Trust which was vitally interested in securing its own interests as regards the demurrage charges recoverable by it under law. This was necessary because on the production of the detention certificate issued by the Customs Authorities the Port Trust was under an obligation to permit the clearance of the goods without payment of full demurrage charges." In view of the above, the stand taken by the first respondent that the petitioners are not entitled for waiver of demurrage during the period the goods were detained for examination under Section 17(3) and (4) of the Customs Act cannot be sustained. 11. In view of the above discussions, the petitioners are entitled for waiver of demurrage for the period mentioned in the detention certificates. These Writ Petitions are accordingly allowed to that extent. No costs.