2010 (1) TMI 459 - HC - Customs

Imports - Container on import found to weigh much less than weight shown in bills of lading. Consignee not taking delivery within time offered. Goods seized and given on superdari to CONCOR. Petitioner, an agent of shipping line seeking release of empty container. CONCOR further asking for rent before release of containers. Held that - liability if any arising out of import, governed by terms of contract between consigner and consignee. No liability attached to shipping line either for payment of haulage charges or detention charges to port authority or CONCOR. Customs having no objection to release containers to shipping line. No body s case that containers constitute case property and required to be detained for criminal case. No provision in Major Port Act, 1963 obligating shipping line to pay rent for containers. Respondents directed to release containers after unloading consignment.

Summary

Issues:
1. Detention of containers by customs authorities.
2. Liability of the shipping line for detention charges.
3. Release of containers to the Petitioner.

Analysis:
1. The Petitioner, acting as an agent for international shipping lines, facilitates import and export of goods in containers. The containers in question were shipped from Nigeria to India but faced issues upon arrival, including the consignee failing to take delivery and discrepancies in the weight of goods. This led to police involvement and detention of containers by customs authorities.

2. The Petitioner argued that it is not liable for the detention charges as its role is limited to facilitating the carriage of goods. Customs authorities and CONCOR confirmed no objection to releasing the containers to the Petitioner. The court noted that the shipping line's obligations are governed by the contract between consignor and consignee, and it has no liability for payment of charges to port authorities or CONCOR.

3. Despite CONCOR's request for auctioning the seized goods to recover charges, the court differentiated between the consignment and the containers. It directed the release of containers to the Petitioner within six weeks after unloading the goods, allowing CONCOR to recover detention charges from the importer/consignor separately. The court clarified that the issue of damages would require a separate legal remedy.

4. The court emphasized that the containers were not case property and should be released, as confirmed by customs authorities. It rejected the argument that the shipping line should bear detention charges, citing previous judgments and lack of legal obligation. The decision aimed to balance the interests of all parties involved while upholding legal principles.