1996 (8) TMI 128 - SC - Customs

Levy of demurrage by the International Airport Authority of India on unaccompanied baggage and baggage under transhipment Held that - The words of the 1980 Regulations are crystal clear. Cargo is expressly defined therein to mean property other than baggage. There is, therefore, no way by which cargo can be read to include baggage. The definition of demurrage in the 1980 Regulations restricts it to what is chargeable for non-removal of cargo within the time allowed. For the reason that baggage is not cargo, demurrage cannot be levied upon baggage. The High Court was, therefore, right in the view that it took in this behalf. In so far as baggage in transhipment is concerned, the same principle applies and no demurrage is chargeable by the Authority thereon. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Levy of demurrage by International Airport Authority of India on unaccompanied baggage.
2. Interpretation of relevant provisions regarding demurrage on baggage.
3. Liability of the Authority for lost baggage in its custody.

Analysis:
1. The judgment dealt with two sets of appeals challenging the levy of demurrage by the International Airport Authority of India on baggage - one involving unaccompanied baggage and the other concerning baggage under transhipment. The facts of the former set of appeals were discussed, where the first respondent's unaccompanied baggage was lost while in the custody of the Authority. The High Court held that demurrage was not chargeable on baggage and ordered the Authority to trace and deliver the lost container or compensate the first respondent.

2. The Authority argued that the Customs Act provisions did not apply to baggage, and the International Airport Authority Regulations defined "cargo" as property other than baggage, making demurrage inapplicable to baggage. The Court agreed with this interpretation, stating that demurrage cannot be levied on baggage as it is not considered cargo under the regulations. The judgment clarified that demurrage is not chargeable on baggage in transhipment as well.

3. The Court addressed the issue of liability for the lost container in the Authority's custody. Despite indicating that the question of liability for the lost property was not the most appropriate in this case, the Court found that the Authority failed to provide any explanation for the untraceable container. As the principle of res ipsa loquitur applied, the Authority was required to compensate the first respondent for the value of the lost container. The appeals were ultimately dismissed with no order as to costs.