Statutory bailee liability for warehoused goods survives customs control, and an act of God defence needs strict proof.

A port trust that takes custody of warehoused imported goods continues to owe the duty of a statutory bailee, so liability for loss by fire remains unless due care is proved. Customs supervision of a bonded warehouse does not displace the port trust's separate statutory responsibility for custody and preservation, because the customs and port regimes operate in distinct spheres. A fire can be treated as an act of God only on proof of a natural and irresistible cause; absent evidence of such an event and absent proof of proper bailee care, that defence fails.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Port Trust, after warehousing the imported goods, remained liable as a statutory bailee for loss caused by the fire; (ii) whether the existence of Customs control over the bonded warehouse excluded the Port Trust's liability; and (iii) whether the fire could be treated as an act of God so as to absolve the Port Trust of responsibility.

Issue (i): whether the Port Trust, after warehousing the imported goods, remained liable as a statutory bailee for loss caused by the fire.

Analysis: The relevant provisions of the Major Port Trusts Act fastened on the Board the responsibility of a bailee for goods taken charge of, and the Court held that once the goods were warehoused under the Port Trust's custody, the Port Trust continued to owe the duty of care attached to bailment. The Port Trust received rent for custody and retained possession and control of the warehoused goods, so its responsibility did not end merely because the goods were also subject to customs procedures.

Conclusion: The Port Trust remained liable as statutory bailee for the loss of the warehoused goods.

Issue (ii): whether the existence of Customs control over the bonded warehouse excluded the Port Trust's liability.

Analysis: The Court distinguished the object of the Customs Act from that of the Major Port Trusts Act. Customs law regulates assessment, clearance, and duty, while the port legislation governs custody, storage, and the responsibility of the Board for goods in its charge. The fact that Customs authorities exercised control for revenue purposes did not displace the Port Trust's separate statutory duty to safeguard the goods, and the two statutory regimes were held to operate in distinct spheres.

Conclusion: Customs control did not exclude the Port Trust's liability for the goods in its custody.

Issue (iii): whether the fire could be treated as an act of God so as to absolve the Port Trust of responsibility.

Analysis: The Court found no reliable evidence of a natural cause, extraordinary event, or irresistible force of nature. The materials on record did not establish lightning, earthquake, or any comparable natural occurrence, and the Port Trust also failed to prove, by records or other convincing evidence, that it had taken the care required of a bailee. In the absence of proof of a true act of God, the defence failed.

Conclusion: The act of God defence was not established and did not absolve the Port Trust.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed because the Port Trust was held responsible for the destruction of the warehoused goods and no legal ground was found to interfere with the decree under challenge.

Ratio Decidendi: A port trust that takes custody of warehoused goods remains a statutory bailee liable for their loss unless it proves due care, and customs supervision over the warehouse does not extinguish that liability; an act of God defence succeeds only on proof of a natural and irresistible cause.

---