2017 (1) TMI 1472 - HC - Customs

Acting contrary to the Bill of Lading - Held that - there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the second respondent. Reliance made by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No. 1, on the Customs Act, 1962, does not help his case, as were not concerned with the authorisation qua a transhipment. On the contrary, it is a case of the violation of Terms of Contract by one party leading to a suit filed for damages based upon it. In the same way, the question of limitation would not arise. When there is no authorisation given to on the part of the appellant, the unilateral exercise undertaken and the goods being damaged, then the responsibility lies on it as rightly found by the Courts below - appeal fails and is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Responsibility of a carrier while carrying a FCL/FCL container under shipping terms.
2. Liability of a carrier for negligence of consignee's agent during destuffing.
3. Carrier's liability for damages caused during destuffing after delivery to consignee.
4. Discharge of carrier's liabilities upon delivery of container as per Bill of Lading.
5. Liability of carrier for damages due to consignee's agent negligence.
6. Extent of carrier's liability in an FCL/FCL shipment.
7. Carrier's responsibility to destuff and deliver cargo to consignee.
8. Fastening a contract for affreightment upon a carrier.
9. Liability for damages to property not in custody and handled by another party.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a sea carrier, delivered goods to the wrong port, causing damage to the consignment. The Courts found the appellant acted contrary to the Bill of Lading, making it responsible for the damages. The lower Appellate Court confirmed this and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant.

2. The appellant argued that the responsibility did not lie with them as per the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, and the Customs Act, 1962. However, the respondent contended that the appellant's actions were contrary to the Bill of Lading, making them liable. The appellant's reliance on various acts was deemed inapplicable.

3. It was established that the appellant's actions, deviating from the Bill of Lading, led to the damages. The Court noted that the second defendant acted on behalf of the appellant, indicating the appellant's responsibility. The violation of contract terms by the appellant resulted in the suit for damages, with no authorization for transshipment provided.

4. The Court emphasized that there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the second defendant, highlighting the appellant's direct responsibility for the damages caused. The unilateral decision to transport goods to a different port without authorization led to the damages, holding the appellant accountable.

5. The Court concluded that there was no substantial question of law warranting interference with the lower courts' decision. The Second Appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower courts' findings of the appellant's liability for the damages caused to the consignment due to their actions.