Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1995 (3) TMI 105

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t was whether the demurrage charges, harbour dues, etc. payable to the Port Trust of Madras were to be recovered from the consignee of the goods or from the "steamer agent". The High Court on the facts of the case came to the conclusion that the consignee was liable to pay the charges. We reproduce hereunder with approval the reasoning of the High Court in this respect. "In the face of the above provisions, the question is as to who is liable for the demurrage charges in relation to the goods which were in the custody of the Port Trust till they were ultimately confiscated by the customs authorities. It cannot be disputed that neither the ship owner or the steamer agent whose duty it is to deliver the cargo to the consignee as per the con .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ly endorsed or a delivery order issued. By the endorsement of the bill of lading or the issue of a delivery order by the steamer agents, the property in the goods vests on such consignee or endorsee, and thus it appears to be clear that the steamer or the steamer agents are not responsible for the custody of the goods after the property in the goods passes to the consignee or endorsee till the customs authorities actually give a clearance. It should also be remembered that the steamer which has entered into a contract of carriage of goods for a reward cannot be said to have undertaken the responsibility of safeguarding the goods or keeping them at their risk till the goods are actually cleared from the customs and taken delivery of by the c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... iver the goods to the consignee on the quay side but that place of delivery has been shifted by the provisions of the Port Trust Act to the warehouse where the Port Trust had stored the goods." 2.Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently relied upon the judgment of this Court in the Trustees of the Port of Madras by its Chairman v. K.P.V. Sheik Mohd. Rowther and Co., 1963 Supp. (2) SCR 915 in support of his contention that it is the "steamer agent" who is liable to pay the charges. The reliance was placed on this judgment before the High Court also. The High Court distinguished the judgment, from the facts of the present case, on the following reasoning : "But as already stated, the charges in that case related to the services re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 859, where this Court held as under : "From the above decisions of this Court it becomes clear that an authority created under a statute even if is the custodian of the imported goods because of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1961, would be entitled to charge demurrages for the imported goods in its custody and make the importer or consignee liable for the same even for periods during which he/it was unable to clear the goods from the Customs area due to fault on the part of the Customs authorities or of other authorities who might have issued detention certificates owning such fault." For the reasons given above, we dismiss the appeal. No costs. All interlocutory applications are dismissed. 4.C.A. Nos. 425/80 and 1909/80 - .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Collector of Customs who is the appellant, served notices on the respondents, claiming certain amounts as Customs duty payable in respect of the stores supplied out of the bonded stock to the daughter vessels. No counter-affidavit was filed. The learned Judge, who dealt with the writ petitions, felt that apart from the fact that no counter-affidavit was filed even on substance, the demands could not be supported. He, therefore, quashed the demand orders. Hence these appeals. Mr. Parasaran, appearing for the Department, has a counter-affidavit ready and seeks leave to file it. In the particular circumstances, we have granted leave. The counter affidavit will be treated as part of the record in the appeal. But, in our opinion, the counter- .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates