Bona fide compliance with safety directions defeated penalty under customs cargo-handling rules for temporary hazardous cargo shifting.

A custodian who issued a public notice restricting hazardous cargo and temporarily shifted such cargo pursuant to directions of the local magistrate and an interim High Court order, after a leakage incident outside the customs premises, was treated as acting in bona fide compliance with lawful directions. The record indicated that safety measures were taken, public safety was prioritised, and customs authorities were kept informed throughout. On that basis, no breach of the customs provisions or cargo-handling regulations was established, and the penalty was held unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant, as custodian of imported goods, violated the customs and cargo-handling regulations by issuing a public notice restricting hazardous cargo and shifting such cargo in compliance with directions of the local administration and the High Court, so as to justify penalty under the cargo-handling regulations and the Customs Act.

Analysis: The appellant issued the public notice and undertook temporary shifting of hazardous cargo pursuant to directions issued by the local magistrate and the interim order of the High Court, after a leakage incident that had occurred outside the customs premises. The record showed that the appellant had taken safety measures and acted in the interest of public safety, while the customs authorities were kept informed throughout. In these circumstances, the conduct was treated as bona fide compliance with lawful directions rather than a unilateral breach of the custodian's obligations under the customs law or the cargo-handling regulations.

Conclusion: No violation of the customs provisions or the cargo-handling regulations was made out, and the penalty was unsustainable.

---