Transporter's burden to prove export delivery not met; unproved foreign documents and drawback claim could not defeat liability.

In a transport dispute over export consignments, the SC held that a transporter who admits entrustment must prove due discharge of its statutory and contractual obligation by reliable evidence of export and delivery. The appellant failed to show compliance with the Customs Act export procedure, and its reliance on foreign customs correspondence was ineffective because the document was not properly proved and the relevant foreign law and unloading procedure were not pleaded or established. The Court also held that a claim for duty drawback, without more, does not conclusively establish that the goods were actually delivered at the foreign customs station. The appeal was dismissed and liability remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant transporter proved that the consignments were duly exported and delivered at Benapole so as to defeat the complainant's claim for non-delivery. (ii) Whether the complainant's claim for duty drawback could by itself establish that the consignments had in fact been duly exported and delivered.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant transporter proved that the consignments were duly exported and delivered at Benapole so as to defeat the complainant's claim for non-delivery.

Analysis: The movement of export goods is regulated by the Customs Act, 1962, which requires a bill of export before loading and an export report before departure of the conveyance. The appellant, despite admitting entrustment of the goods, did not produce convincing material showing compliance with the statutory export procedure for the disputed consignments. The documents relied upon by the appellant were not supported by proper pleadings or proof, and the foreign customs correspondence was not duly proved as a public document. The Court also held that foreign law was a question of fact and that the appellant had not pleaded or proved the relevant Bangladesh procedure for unloading and delivery. On the facts, the burden to show due discharge of the transport obligation remained on the appellant and was not discharged.

Conclusion: The appellant failed to prove due delivery of the consignments at Benapole, and the respondent's claim was not displaced.

Issue (ii): Whether the complainant's claim for duty drawback could by itself establish that the consignments had in fact been duly exported and delivered.

Analysis: The Court examined the drawback provisions under the Customs Act, 1962 and noted that entitlement to drawback depends upon the statutory scheme and relevant rules. The record did not show whether the claim was under Section 74 or Section 75, nor did it establish that the mere claim or grant of drawback necessarily meant that the goods were delivered at the foreign customs station. The Court therefore rejected the argument that drawback by itself conclusively proved export delivery.

Conclusion: The drawback claim did not establish due delivery or discharge of the appellant's obligation.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed and the order allowing the consumer complaint and awarding the value of the consignments with interest and costs was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a transport dispute involving export consignments, the transporter who admits entrustment bears the burden to prove due discharge of its statutory and contractual obligation by reliable evidence of export and delivery; an unproved foreign document or a drawback claim, by itself, is insufficient to displace liability.

---