| Headnote |
Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 – Scheme of the Act – ss.2, 42,43, 48, 59-65, 123, 131 – Goods not cleared by consignee –Payment of storage/demurrage charges – Liability of – High Courtwhile deciding on limited question as to extent of liability of shippingagents beyond 75 days mentioned in relevant TAMP (Tariff Authorityfor Major Ports) Orders inter alia held that Port Trust can demandGround Rent only to a maximum period of 75 days –Liability forpayment of charges to Port Trust – Inconsistency in judgments(Rowther-II, Sriyanesh Knitters, Forbes-II and Rasiklal) delivered afterConstitution Bench judgment in Rowther-I – Reference to largerbench – Held: Point of time at which title to the goods passes to theconsignee is not relevant to determine the liability of the consigneeor steamer agent in respect of charges to be paid to the Port Trust –Bill of lading endorsed by the steamer agent is different from thebill of lading endorsed by the owner of the goods – Both stages areirrelevant in determining who is to pay storage charges –Upto thepoint that the Port Trust takes charge of the goods, and gives receipttherefor, the steamer agent may be held liable for Port Trust duesw.r.t services rendered qua unloading of goods, but thereafter, theimporter, owner, consignee or their agent is liable to pay demurragecharges for storage of goods – Until the stage of landing andremoval to a place of storage, the steamer’s agent or the vesselitself may be made liable for rates payable by the vessel – When thePort Trust takes charge of the goods from the vessel, or from anyother person who can be said to be owner as defined u/s.2(o), it isonly the owner of the goods or other persons entitled to the goods(who may be beneficially entitled as well) that the Port Trust has tolook to for payment of storage or demurrage charges – Further, itwould be the duty of Port Trust to destuff every container entrustedto it, and return destuffed containers to any such person within asshort a period as feasible where the owner/person entitled to thegoods does not come forward to take delivery of the goods anddestuff such containers – On facts, steamer agents themselves didnot dispute liability to pay ground rent upto 75 days and paid thesame – They even paid it beyond 75 days – Further, expression“may” in ss.61, 62 cannot be read as “shall”, subject to the caveatthat as the “State” u/Art.12, a Port Trust must act reasonably, andattempt to sell the goods within a reasonable period from the dateon which it assumed custody of them – Impugned judgment set asideonly on aforesaid question of law – Customs Act, 1962 – ss.2(23),(26); 29, 30, 33, 45(1), 46(1), (2), 48, 49, 150 – Maxims – noscitura sociis – Bill of Entry (Forms) Regulations, 1976 – CustomsValuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007– rr.2(1)(d), (f), 4, 5, 10(1)(a)(ii) – Customs Tariff Act, 1975 – s.2 –Indian Bills of Lading Act, 1856 – s.1 – Contract Act, 1872 – s.148,151, 152, 158, 161 – Constitution of India – Arts.12, 14.Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 – s.2(o) – “owner” – Held: Whens.2(o) defines “owner”, it defines owner in relation to goodsseparately from owner in relation to any vessel – In s.2(o)(i), whenowner is defined in relation to “goods”, the definition is an inclusiveone – Secondly, it includes persons who are owners of the goods,or persons beneficially entitled to the goods, such as the consignor,consignee and the shipper and then also includes agents for sale,custody, loading or unloading of such goods.Maxims – noscitur a sociis – When not applicable– Held: Asthe definition of “owner” is inclusive, the non-mention of the ship-owner in the first part of the definition makes no difference – Itwould be incongruous that the shipowner’s agent is included in thelatter part of the definition, but not the ship-owner itself, whichwould indicate that the maxim noscitur a sociis cannot apply – MajorPort Trusts Act, 1963 – s.2(o).Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 – ss.42(3), (5), (6) – Held:ss.42(5) and (6) have no application to the Board, as they applyonly to the “person” authorised u/s.42(3) by the Board to performservices mentioned in sub-section (1).Contract Act, 1872 – Bailor-bailee relationship – Held:Observations made in paragraphs 23 and 25 of Port of Bombay v.Sriyanesh Knitters (1999) 7 SCC 228 that the consignee is the bailorof the goods, with the Port Trust being the bailee thereof, are notcorrect law and are overruled – Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. |
