2008 (2) TMI 34 - SC - Customs

Appellant, steamer agent - goods remained uncleared for a period of over two months from the date of landing by consignee - three-judge Bench of this Court in another case held that demurrage charges have to be collected only from consignee, not from steamer agent - SC have doubt in the correctness of the decision rendered by a three-judge Bench of this Court - in view of the questions of law of public importance as framed above this appeal may be referred to a larger bench

Summary

Issues:
1. Liability of a steamer agent under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963.
2. Liability of a steamer agent for payment of storage charges/demurrage.
3. Extent of liability of a steamer agent and its impact on the prompt action required under the Act.

Issue 1: Liability of a Steamer Agent under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963:
The case involved a dispute where the appellant, a steamer agent, was held liable for payment of charges related to uncleared goods landed at the Port of Bombay. The appellant contended that they were not the owner of the goods as per Section 2(o) of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. The appellant relied on a previous judgment to support their argument, questioning the correctness of the said judgment. However, the respondent argued that a Constitution Bench decision held the steamer agent liable for such charges. The Court noted the distinctions in the cases referred to and decided to refer the matter to a larger bench for an authoritative decision due to the public importance of the legal issues involved.

Issue 2: Liability of a Steamer Agent for Payment of Storage Charges/Demurrage:
The appellant, as the steamer agent, argued that they were not liable to pay the charges for uncleared goods, emphasizing that the liability rested with the consignee. The appellant further contended that the plaintiff was negligent in delaying the auction of the goods. The respondent, however, maintained that the steamer agent was indeed liable for such charges based on the Constitution Bench decision, distinguishing it from the facts of the present case. The Court acknowledged the differing interpretations of the law and deemed the matter to be of public importance, warranting further consideration by a larger bench.

Issue 3: Extent of Liability of a Steamer Agent and Impact on Prompt Action:
The Court recognized the importance of clarifying the extent of a steamer agent's liability in cases involving uncleared goods and the impact of such liability on the prompt actions required under the relevant provisions of the Act. The questions raised in this appeal highlighted the recurring nature of the legal issues and the need for a thorough examination to provide clarity on the responsibilities of steamer agents in similar situations. The Court, considering the public importance of the legal questions at hand, decided to refer the appeal to a larger bench for a definitive ruling.

---