Post-endorsement port charges shift to the consignee, leaving the steamer agent outside liability for demurrage and destuffing costs.

After endorsement of the bill of lading or issuance of the delivery order, liability for demurrage and related port charges shifts from the steamer agent to the consignee. The port authority may enforce its statutory lien under the Major Port Trusts Act against the goods or the person liable, but not against the steamer agent for post-endorsement storage charges. On the facts, the delay in removal of cargo was attributable to port-side process and the consignee's conduct, so post-endorsement demurrage was unrecoverable from the agent. The same reasoning applied to destuffing charges for the containers, which were also held not recoverable from the steamer agent.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the port authority could recover demurrage and other port charges from the steamer agent in respect of containers after endorsement of the bill of lading and issuance of the delivery order; (ii) Whether the steamer agent could be fastened with destuffing charges for the 78 containers.

Issue (i): Whether the port authority could recover demurrage and other port charges from the steamer agent in respect of containers after endorsement of the bill of lading and issuance of the delivery order.

Analysis: The liability of a carrier or steamer agent for port charges is limited to the period before the bill of lading is endorsed or the delivery order is issued. Once that happens, the consignee becomes liable for the charges arising from storage of the goods in the port premises. The port authority retains a statutory lien under Sections 59, 61 and 62 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 and may proceed against the goods or the consignee, but not against the steamer agent for post-endorsement demurrage. The delay in removal of the cargo was attributable to the port-side process and the consignee's abandonment, not to the steamer agent.

Conclusion: The port authority could not recover post-endorsement demurrage and port charges from the steamer agent; such claim lay against the consignee or the goods.

Issue (ii): Whether the steamer agent could be fastened with destuffing charges for the 78 containers.

Analysis: Destuffing was necessary only because the containers could not otherwise be removed, and the record showed that the steamer agent sought permission repeatedly. The port authority's inaction and delayed permission resulted in the prolonged detention. The obligation to destuff in the circumstances could not be shifted to the steamer agent, particularly when the underlying cargo did not belong to it and the division bench order also recorded that no claim would be made against the writ petitioner for dues relatable to the cargo owner. The statutory scheme protected the port authority by enabling recovery from the goods or the person liable, not by imposing destuffing costs on the steamer agent in these facts.

Conclusion: The destuffing charges were not recoverable from the steamer agent.

Final Conclusion: The port authority's monetary claims against the steamer agent failed, the charges already debited were held unsustainable, and the respondents were entitled to withdraw the security amount while the port authority was left to proceed against the consignee or the goods in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: After endorsement of the bill of lading or issuance of the delivery order, liability for demurrage and related port charges shifts from the steamer agent to the consignee, and the port authority must enforce its statutory lien against the goods or the person liable under the statute rather than against the steamer agent.

---