Port demurrage liability follows the bailment regime, while remission refusals must rest on rational, recorded reasons.

Title to imported goods passing after arrival did not defeat the port authority's right to recover demurrage and allied charges, because liability arose from the statutory bailment regime and the consignee's position in relation to the goods rather than strict ownership. The consignee or person claiming through the consignor remained liable, and the port authority's lien and power to detain and sell goods supported recovery. By contrast, a refusal to grant further remission had to rest on rational, recorded reasons and a sound policy; since those grounds were not shown, the refusal was quashed and reconsideration directed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the port authority could recover demurrage and allied charges from the appellant notwithstanding that the appellant acquired title to the goods after their arrival and storage at the port; (ii) whether the refusal to grant complete remission of demurrage was sustainable, including on the ground of alleged discriminatory treatment.

Issue (i): Whether the port authority could recover demurrage and allied charges from the appellant notwithstanding that the appellant acquired title to the goods after their arrival and storage at the port.

Analysis: The liability to pay charges for goods placed in the custody of the port authority does not depend on the precise moment when title passes. Under the statutory scheme, the port authority has a lien over goods and may seize, detain and sell them for recovery of dues. In the context of imported goods carried under a bill of lading, the consignee or a person claiming through the consignor becomes subject to the liabilities attached to the goods. The Court treated the port authority as standing in the position of a sub-bailee and held that the right to recover dues flows from the bailment structure and the statutory regime, not from ownership in the strict sense.

Conclusion: The appellant remained liable to pay the demurrage and the first submission was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the refusal to grant complete remission of demurrage was sustainable, including on the ground of alleged discriminatory treatment.

Analysis: The remission power under the port law is discretionary and must be exercised on rational considerations and according to a sound policy. The facts showed that partial remission had already been granted, but the authority did not place on record clear reasons or an intelligible policy for declining further remission. The comparison with the other importer was not accepted as establishing identity of facts, yet the Court found the impugned refusal vulnerable because the discretion had not been shown to have been exercised on relevant grounds.

Conclusion: The refusal to grant further remission was set aside and the matter was left open for fresh decision in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only in part: the liability to pay demurrage was upheld, but the order declining additional remission was quashed and reconsideration was directed.

Ratio Decidendi: For goods under a port bailment regime, title to the goods is irrelevant to the port authority's right to recover dues from a consignee or person claiming through the consignor, and any refusal of remission must be based on rational, recorded reasons and a sound policy.

---