2009 (9) TMI 464 - HC - Customs

Port dues- Suit for recovery of pre-confiscation charges. Second defendant as agent of vessel liable as per section 2(o) of Major Port Trust Act, 1963. Burden of proof that second defendant was vessel agent discharged by plaintiff and evidence. Failure to disclose nature of contract leading to drawal of adverse inference against second defendant. Vessel agent not liable once property in goods has passed upon endorsement of bill of lading or issuance of delivery order. Consignee being fictitious entity as noted in order confiscation, passing of property in goods not arises. Second defendant as bailors of consignment, liable for port charges for period prior to confiscation by customs.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Liability of Second Defendants for Port Trust charges
2. Confiscation of the suit consignment by the Collector of Customs
3. Liability of Defendants to pay the Port Trust charges
4. Relief entitled to the Plaintiffs

Analysis:

Issue No. 1:
The court analyzed the liability of the Second Defendants based on the definition of "owner" under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. The Act defines "owner" to include consignor, consignee, shipper, or agent for goods. The court noted that the Second Defendants were agents of the vessel, as admitted by them, and held themselves out as agents of Maersk Line. The Plaintiff established that the Second Defendants were the vessel agents, and the Defendants failed to provide evidence to the contrary. The court referred to a Supreme Court case where it was held that once property in goods passes to the consignee, the vessel agent cannot be held liable. As the Second Defendants did not prove that property had passed to the consignee, the court held in favor of the Plaintiff.

Issue No. 2:
The court confirmed that the consignment was indeed confiscated by the Collector of Customs as per the order dated 1st December, 1986.

Issue No. 3:
The Plaintiffs presented evidence to support the calculation of pre-confiscation charges amounting to Rs. 2,15,851.80. The court found the evidence satisfactory, with no substantial challenge to the correctness of the working sheet. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs for the payment of Port Trust charges.

Relief:
The court decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiffs, with the modification that the Plaintiff would be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the suit until payment or realization.