Trustees of Port of Madras Vs. M/s. Nagavedu Lungi & Company
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No.1519 of 1982
Petitioner: Trustees of Port of Madras
Respondent: M/s. Nagavedu Lungi & Company
Apeal: Civil Appeal No.1519 of 1982
Judges: KULDIP SINGH, N. VENKATACHALA & S. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 21, 1995
Head Note:
IMPORT-EXPORT
Demurrage
Demurrage – Goods illegally detained by the Customs Authorities at the customs area of the sea-port – Who is liable to pay demurrage? – Held that the importer-consignee of goods cannot avoid his liability to pay demurrage charges and other incidental charges in respect of its goods illegally detained in the customs area and the same applies to the liability to pay demurrage charges or incidental charges by the exporter-consignor of goods illegally detained in the customs area of the sea-port by the Customs Authorities – The fact that they belonged to either the importer-consignee or exporter-consignor does not make any difference.
Cases Reffered:
1.International Airports Authority of India v. M/s. Grand Slam International & Ors., JT 1995 (2) SC 452 = 1995(1) SCALE 859 – Applied. (Para 4)
JUDGEMENT:
VENKATACHALA, J. :
1. The appellant was the plaintiff in suit – O.S. No. 3980/69 in City Civil Court at Madras, while respondents-1 to 5 were defendants-1 to 5 therein. That suit had been instituted by the plaintiff – the trustees of Port of Madras against the defendants for recovery of demurrage charges and other incidental charges in respect of certain textile goods in their custody in the customs area of the Port of Madras. Defendant-1 was the consignor-exporter of those goods. Defendant-2 was the shipping agent who had to put those goods on board the ship for their export. Defendant-5 is the alleged successor of defendant-2 firm. Defendant-4 is the Collector of Customs who, on behalf of the Union of India, defendant-3 was responsible for illegal detention of the goods in the customs area of the Port of Madras giving rise to the claim for demurrage charges and other incidental charges by the plaintiff.
2. The City Civil Court dismissed the suit against all the defendants as in its view consignor – exporter of those goods could not be held liable for demurrage charges and incidental charges payable for those goods when they had been illegally detained in the customs area of the Port of Madras by respondent-4, purporting to exercise his powers under Customs Act. The plaintiff questioned the correctness of that judgment and decree of the City Civil Court dismissing its suit against all the defendants, by presenting an appeal therefrom before the High Court of Madras in Appeal No. 494/73. But, that appeal was also dismissed.
3. It is the judgment and decree of dismissal of that appeal by which the judgment and decree of dismissal of the suit by the City Civil Court is affirmed, which is appealed against in this Court in the present appeal of the plaintiff.
4. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties in the appeal. A three Judge Bench of this Court in International Airports Authority of India v. M/s. Grand Slam International & Ors. reported in 1995(1) SCALE 859, has ruled that the importer-consignee of goods cannot avoid his liability to pay demurrage charges and other incidental charges in respect of its goods illegally detained in the customs area of the Airport by the Customs Authorities under the Customs Act. The said ruling of this Court as regards liability for demurrage charges and other incidental charges by importer-consignee of goods illegally detained in the customs area of the Airport by the Customs Authorities applies to the liability to pay demurrage charges or incidental charges by the exporter-consignor of goods illegally detained in the customs area of the sea-port by the Customs Authorities under the Customs Act, for such goods illegally detained by the Customs Authorities, the fact that they belonged to either the importer- consignee or exporter-consignor does not make any difference.
5. In the said view of the matter, the judgments and decrees under appeal are liable to be set aside and the suit of the plaintiff calls to be decreed against exporter-consignor, defendant-1.
6. In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the judgments and decrees of the courts below and decree the suit O.S. 3980/69 against defendant-1 as prayed for, with costs.
1. The appellant was the plaintiff in suit – O.S. No. 3980/69 in City Civil Court at Madras, while respondents-1 to 5 were defendants-1 to 5 therein. That suit had been instituted by the plaintiff – the trustees of Port of Madras against the defendants for recovery of demurrage charges and other incidental charges in respect of certain textile goods in their custody in the customs area of the Port of Madras. Defendant-1 was the consignor-exporter of those goods. Defendant-2 was the shipping agent who had to put those goods on board the ship for their export. Defendant-5 is the alleged successor of defendant-2 firm. Defendant-4 is the Collector of Customs who, on behalf of the Union of India, defendant-3 was responsible for illegal detention of the goods in the customs area of the Port of Madras giving rise to the claim for demurrage charges and other incidental charges by the plaintiff.
2. The City Civil Court dismissed the suit against all the defendants as in its view consignor – exporter of those goods could not be held liable for demurrage charges and incidental charges payable for those goods when they had been illegally detained in the customs area of the Port of Madras by respondent-4, purporting to exercise his powers under Customs Act. The plaintiff questioned the correctness of that judgment and decree of the City Civil Court dismissing its suit against all the defendants, by presenting an appeal therefrom before the High Court of Madras in Appeal No. 494/73. But, that appeal was also dismissed.
3. It is the judgment and decree of dismissal of that appeal by which the judgment and decree of dismissal of the suit by the City Civil Court is affirmed, which is appealed against in this Court in the present appeal of the plaintiff.
4. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties in the appeal. A three Judge Bench of this Court in International Airports Authority of India v. M/s. Grand Slam International & Ors. reported in 1995(1) SCALE 859, has ruled that the importer-consignee of goods cannot avoid his liability to pay demurrage charges and other incidental charges in respect of its goods illegally detained in the customs area of the Airport by the Customs Authorities under the Customs Act. The said ruling of this Court as regards liability for demurrage charges and other incidental charges by importer-consignee of goods illegally detained in the customs area of the Airport by the Customs Authorities applies to the liability to pay demurrage charges or incidental charges by the exporter-consignor of goods illegally detained in the customs area of the sea-port by the Customs Authorities under the Customs Act, for such goods illegally detained by the Customs Authorities, the fact that they belonged to either the importer- consignee or exporter-consignor does not make any difference.
5. In the said view of the matter, the judgments and decrees under appeal are liable to be set aside and the suit of the plaintiff calls to be decreed against exporter-consignor, defendant-1.
6. In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the judgments and decrees of the courts below and decree the suit O.S. 3980/69 against defendant-1 as prayed for, with costs.
