Custodial loss of imported goods and limitation under the Limitation Act: statutory protection did not displace residuary time limits.

Custodial loss of imported goods was treated as negligence where the authority retained the consignments, no material supported alleged misappropriation by the importer, and no notice of intended auction was issued. On limitation, Article 72 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was held inapplicable because it is confined to acts or omissions bona fide done in pursuance of statutory authority; a mere failure to safeguard goods in custody does not qualify. The residuary limitation period under Article 113 therefore applied, and the suit was not time-barred. Liability for the lost goods with interest was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the defendant authority was negligent and liable for the loss of the imported goods while they remained in its custody; (ii) whether the suit was barred by limitation under Article 72 of the Limitation Act, 1963, or governed by Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Issue (i): whether the defendant authority was negligent and liable for the loss of the imported goods while they remained in its custody.

Analysis: The plaintiff proved receipt of the consignments, filing of Bills of Entry, payment to the foreign supplier, and payment of customs duty in respect of one consignment. The defendant did not produce material to support the allegation of misappropriation by the plaintiff or its agents. The evidence also showed that the goods were in the authority's custody and that no notice of intended auction was issued. In these circumstances, the loss of the goods while under the defendant's care established negligence in safe custody.

Conclusion: The finding of negligence and liability was upheld, and the plaintiff was entitled to recover the value of the lost goods with interest.

Issue (ii): whether the suit was barred by limitation under Article 72 of the Limitation Act, 1963, or governed by Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Analysis: Article 72 applies only where the impugned act or omission is done in pursuance of an enactment and under colour of a statutory duty, in the sense of a bona fide exercise of statutory power. A mere failure to take care of goods in custody, or neglect of duty, does not fall within that article. The authority's omission was not shown to be an act done in pursuance of statutory authority so as to attract the shorter one-year period. The residuary three-year period therefore applied.

Conclusion: The suit was not time-barred and Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963 governed limitation.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on both negligence and limitation, and the decree in favour of the plaintiff was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Article 72 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is attracted only to acts or omissions bona fide done in pursuance of statutory authority, not to mere neglect of custodial duty; where imported goods are lost while in the defendant authority's custody and the statutory protection is not made out, liability and the ordinary residuary limitation period apply.

---